Final Manuscript. P VARGAS
Transcript of Final Manuscript. P VARGAS
UC RiversideUC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations
TitleAcquisition, Articulation, and Transferring of Knowledge in Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
Permalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/8pz1c21d
AuthorVargas, Patricio
Publication Date2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of California
i
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE
Acquisition and Articulation of Technical Knowledge in Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Education
by
Patricio I. Vargas
December 2011
Dissertation Committee: Dr. Natalie Becker, Chairperson Dr. John Levin Dr. Robert K. Ream
ii
Copyright by Patricio I. Vargas
2011
iii
The Dissertation of Patricio I. Vargas is approved: _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Committee Chairperson
University of California, Riverside
iv
ACKNOWELDGEMENT
I would first like to acknowledge the faculty and leadership of City
Elementary School, without their contribution, this work would not have
been possible. Next, I would like to thank and acknowledge my committee
members for their support and encouragement in particular to Dr. Natalie
Becker, my chair, who became invaluable in facilitating, motivating,
supporting, and challenging my ideas. She helped me uncover the relevance
of a discussion with high stakes in today’s society. Her sociological
perspective and constructive questions over time have enabled me to think
more deeply about teaching as a profession and about the content of my
research. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Ream for bringing a fresh
perspective in such a meaningful way that one can see the joy of teaching and
experience the joy of learning. I also would like to thank Dr. Reba N. Page,
Dr. Douglas Mitchell, and Dr. John Wills for their unique contribution to help
me see the world critically and to uncover the possibilities of contributing to
institutional leadership and education.
I am also deeply grateful to other educators with whom I established
such meaningful dialogue that enabled me to listen to my own story and that
of others so that I could continue in my educational and professional path.
My sincere gratitude to Helen Frost, Ann O’Rourke, and Randi Trontz for
their leadership, guidance, coaching, and most importantly for believing in
v
me. It was the immediacy of those meaningful relationships that made
possible a journey that unlocked countless possibilities to positively
contribute to my professional path in education and leadership.
I would also like to acknowledge my wife, Linda; words would never
fully express what her love and support have meant to me. Our togetherness
gave me a greater vision of what I could accomplish, what I could become.
And last, I want to acknowledge my mother, Ampari; my brother, Pablo; my
uncle, Oscar; and my aunts Ensa and Edy, they all made my dream their
dream, my success their success, and for that and many other things, I will be
forever grateful. A famous ancient African Proverb reads: “It takes a village
to raise a child.” I know completing my dissertation is a remarkable
accomplishment. But, in my case, it took a community of loved ones and
people that believed in me to help me achieve an academic goal, one that
represents the collective achievement of a dream, the beginning of a new
adventure.
vi
DEDICATION
To Linda, the love of my life; Alexa and Patrick, my children; and my loved ones in Ecuador.
vii
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Acquisition and Articulation of Technical Knowledge in Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
by
Patricio I. Vargas
Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Education University of California, Riverside, December 2011
Dr. Natalie Becker, Chairperson
One of the recurring themes in K-12 public education in the United
States is the long-standing debate about teachers’ professional competency.
Many of the restructuring models of the last two decades have stressed the
need to increase teacher professional expertise as a means of fostering
student achievement. One of these models, professional learning
communities, proposes a redefinition of the role of teachers through
collaborative practices. This research highlights the most salient
characteristics of professional learning communities (PLCs) as practiced in a
newly restructured public elementary school and considers its impact on the
creation of shared technical expertise. It explores how two teams of teachers
involved in PLCs acquire and articulate technical knowledge together and
viii
the nature of this knowledge. This study used an interpretative approach
concerned with the specifics of meaning and action in the interaction of
teachers in PLCs. This research defines the specific structure of teacher
collaboration and the meaning-perspectives of the participants as they
developed this shared learning system of interaction. The investigation
highlights the central importance of the allocation and use of non-
instructional time for the purpose of collaboration as a precursor to the
production of both teacher technical expertise and organic teacher
accountability systems. Two main themes developed: first, the highly local
nature of the technical knowledge about teaching and learning that is
produced through effective teacher collaboration; and, second, the evolving
state of accountability within PLC within which formal and informal systems
develop that hold members accountable to the group and students. Last, this
study discusses the fundamental role that relationships play in fostering
dialectic practices about student learning and strengthening collective
agreements within collaborative endeavors in the teaching profession. The
findings offer insights into the evolving state of teachers as professionals and
how PLCs are affecting the way schools view teaching and learning.
ix
Table of Contents
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………….. iv
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION ………………………. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………….. ix
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………. xi
CHAPTER 1 …………….…………………………………………. 1 Background of the Problem …………………………………….. 6
Significance of the Study……………………………………….... 9 Definition of Terms……….……..………………………………... 11
CHAPTER 2
Professional Learning Communities: Lessons from the Literature ……………………………..……... 14 Reforms in the United States and PLC ………………………. 14 The Sociology of the Professions ………………...…………….. 21 The Sociology of Teaching as a Profession …………………… 25 Authority in the Teaching Profession …………………………. 25 Organization of Knowledge in the Teaching Profession ….. .. 28 Socialization into and within the Profession ………………… 29 Institutional Context of Teaching ……………………………... 31 The Historical Status of the Teaching Profession …………… 34 Organizing Schools for Teacher Learning …………………….. 36 Professional Learning Communities (PLC)……………………. 39 Purpose of this Study …………………………………………….. 41
CHAPTER 3 Methodology and Theoretical Orientation….………………...... 43 Methodology ………………………………………………………… 44 Fred Erikson and Educational Interpretative Research …….. 44 Research Methods and Design ………………………................. 47 The Research Site…………………………………………………... 47 Getting Access to the School and Case Study Teams ………… 47 Data Collection and Field Analysis…………………………….... 53 Data Analysis...…………………………………………………….. 59 Conceptual Frame for Emergent Analysis ………………......... 63
x
PLC as Applied Theory ……………………………………………. 64 Qualifying Elements of PLC …………………………………....... 64 A Cultural Perspective on the Applied Theory of PLC ………. 68 Institutional Perspective on the Applied Theory of PLC …….. 70 Summary of Conceptual Framework.…………………………… 77
CHAPTER 4 The Making of a Professional Learning Community................ 81 Leading Change in a School..……………................................... 87 The Making of a PLC………………………………………….…… 91 The Complexity in Taking the First Steps……………………... 93 Stages of Implementation………………………………..…..….... 100 Construction of the Schedule…………………………………...... 105 Bureaucratic Support and Its Effect on Collaboration……….. 107 Use of Professional Time………………………………………….. 111 The Establishing of Time Management ………........................ 118
CHAPTER 5 Conceptualization of Knowledge and Accountability in PLCs ……………………………………………………………..... 124 Shared Knowledge………………………………………………...... 131 Parent Conferences…………………………………………………. 132 Collaborative Meetings for the Purpose of Intervention…....... 134 What I Know Versus what we Know..…………………………… 138 The Negotiation of an Informal Mechanism of Accountability. 141 Meeting Student Academic Needs……………………………….. 145 The Evolving State of Accountability and Professional Development in the Context of PLC Reform…………………… 150 Shared Agreements: The Norm of PLC……………………….… 156
CHAPTER 6
The Power of Relationships on the PLCs ……………….….….. 161 Relationships as Enablers………………………………………… 164 The Role of Relationships…………………………………………. 166 The Significance of Supportive Dialectic Practices………….… 171 Relationships as Disablers………………………………………… 173 Trust and Interaction………………………………………………. 178
CHAPTER 7
Summary of Findings and Significance of Research………… 184 Resources………………………………………….………………... 194
xi
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Description of Participating Subjects ……………………….. 51 Table 2. Organizational Positions of Participants Interviewed.…... 57 Table 3. Quantitative Representation of Interview Occurrences.… 58 Table 4. Second grade teacher first interview – Mary..…………….. 82 Table 5. Longitudinal (API) for City Elementary School…………… 85 Table 6. Principal’s Recollection of Events.…………………………… 87 Table 7. Second Grade Lead Teacher First Interview………………. 95 Table 8. Second Grade Teacher Interview – Carol ………………….. 97 Table 9. Principal Interview…………………………………..………… 98 Table 10. Fourth Grade Teacher Lead Interview…..………………... 99 Table 11. Second Grade Teacher Interview – Jane …………………. 99 Table 12. Second Grade Teacher First Interview – Becky………….. 103 Table 13. Second Grade Teacher Interview – Cynda.………………. 104 Table 14. PLC Schedule for Second and Fourth Grades ………….… 112 Table 15. Response to Interruption in Fourth Grade …………….…. 115 Table 16. Fourth Grade Planning Interaction ……………….………. 119 Table 17. Second Grade Planning Interaction..……………………… 126 Table 18. Fourth Grade Planning Interaction ……………………….. 130 Table 19. Second Grade Literary Genre Discussion..……………….. 132 Table 20. Grade Level Approach to Parent Conferences.…………... 133 Table 21. Second Grade Level Approach to Intervention.………….. 135 Table 22. Second Grade Teacher First Interview – Liz..…………… 137 Table 23. Second Grade Teacher Second Interview – Becky ………. 140 Table 24. Fourth Grade Teacher First Interview – Correen.……… 142
xii
Table 25. Second Grade Teacher Second Interview – Jane ………... 143 Table 26. Second Grade Teacher Second Interview – Mary..………. 144 Table 27. Second Grade Lead Teacher Second Interview..…………. 146 Table 28. Fourth Grade Teacher Second Interview – Correen ….…. 149 Table 29. Jane’s (2T) Perspective on PLC..…………………………… 154 Table 30. Ron’s (2L) Approach to Shared Agreements ……………… 157 Table 31. Becky’s (2T) Perspective on PLC ………………………….... 163 Table 32. Fourth Grade Exchange of Relatedness.………………….. 169 Table 33. Second Grade Team Relatedness..…………………………. 172 Table 34. Second Grade Team’s Approach to Concerns …………….. 175 Table 35. Second grade Interaction on Test Taking Strategies.…... 180
xiii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Graphic representation of conceptual framework ………. 80
1
Chapter 1
Professional learning communities are one model [of school improvement] that recognizes that school capacities must be grounded in the culture of the school and the normative behaviors of its staff (Hord et al., 2000, p. 1).
Efforts to increase teachers’ capacity in ways that boost student
academic achievement have become a significant component of the
contemporary era of standards and accountability in U.S. public education.
While standards and accountability have become the buzzwords to denote the
contemporary era of K-12 educational reform, questions regarding teacher
competency are at the center of the debate. The absence of a systematic
approach to teacher learning has prompted a wide range of reforms intended
to ensure that teachers have the professional skill set and capacity to meet
the educational needs of all children. The following dissertation presents the
results of my study of one of these reforms intended to build the capacity of
teachers through the implementation of collaborative practices, professional
learning communities (PLC).
This ethnographic research was designed to shed light on a much-
debated area, teacher professionalism. The 1983 report of the National
Commission of Excellence in Education commonly referred to as A Nation at
Risk initiated a national movement to improve U.S. schools. As a result of
this pronouncement on the mediocre state of schools in the United States,
state and federal governments worked to establish a set of shared curricular
2
standards and to hold teachers and students accountable for meeting these
standards. However, research indicated that the academic success of students
did not depend solely on higher curricular standards, but ultimately on the
quality of teacher instruction in the classroom (Little, 1982; Rosenholtz,
1989). This scholarship stressed that without addressing how to increase
teaching expertise, individually and collectively, reforms were doomed to fail.
The question is: how did schools approach the accountability
challenge? And how did they deal with the call to increasing teacher
expertise? This was not an easy task for schools to accomplish, and yearly
progress reports began to highlight the existence of an achievement gap
between schools, especially those affected by variables such as low
socioeconomic groups, minorities, and English learners. Those schools failing
to meet accountability measurements were labeled as low achieving,
prompting school administrators to look for viable alternatives to equip their
classroom teachers with the tools necessary to meet federal and state annual
measurable objectives and target goals (Wilson & Daviss, 1994). One of the
proposed solutions to struggling schools was the reorganization of the school
for the purpose of intentional teacher collaboration, highlighting the
importance of collegiality as precursor to increasing student academic
achievement (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Lasiter, 1996; Lieberman &
McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1994).
3
Although theoretically sound, creating the conditions to foster
collaboration in an institution characterized by teacher isolation represented
a challenging undertaking. Evidence suggests that the concept of
collaborative teams composed of interdependent teachers who systematically
address student learning was not new to education (Little, 1982; Rosenholtz,
1989). However, collaboration happened in isolated schools that failed to
provide a systematic approach to teacher learning. It is not until the end of
the 20th century that an organized and sustained effort to implement
programs of professional collaboration throughout the US was seen. One of
these organizational models stressed the need to increase the professional
learning of teachers in a setting defined as a professional learning
community (PLC) (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
My interest in this organizational approach increased over the course
of my professional practice. As a teacher, I found myself immersed in the
isolated universe of my classroom where my professional expertise developed
by trial and error. Collaboration with colleagues was initiated often times
informally during my first years as an educator. Although my fellow teachers
and I shared ideas and practices, there was nothing in place to systematically
address professional needs. Furthermore, professional development happened
sporadically and the technical application of strategies and methodologies in
the classroom was individually decided rather than negotiated with other
4
colleagues. I continued with my graduate education and eventually became
an administrator. As such, I attended several staff development trainings,
workshops, and conferences related to PLC. The work of teachers within the
institution captivated my attention and led me to review the research
available on teacher professional collaborative practices and to question the
process and outcomes proposed by PLC. I was intrigued by the collaborative
approach proposed by the PLC initiative, which was dissonant with the
traditional approach to teaching and learning. As an administrator, I have
worked in two counties, three different districts, and in different capacities at
the elementary, secondary, and district level. In each of the districts where I
was employed, the PLC initiative was provided to schools as a way of
increasing student academic achievement. I was intrigued by the initial
reaction teachers had when presented with the PLC concept; while some
teams seemed to fully embrace it, others rejected it and perceived it as an
institutional control mechanism. Thus, I questioned the process, took a closer
look, and examined the proposed premise behind PLC. My review of the
extent literature on PLC led me to formulate a set of questions that guided
this dissertation study. What follows is a product of my working with
participating grade level teams in schools attempting to become PLCs.
The PLC model advocates for teacher interdependence, collegiality,
and collaboration in schools. It proposes a culture defined by an ethos in
5
which empowerment and shared decision-making affect sustained
professional development and knowledge acquisition, articulation, and
codification. However, in order to improve the quality of teacher instruction
in the classroom through collaborative means, it is necessary to define how
this process must take place, so that teachers’ technical expertise,
individually and collectively, could become precursor to higher student
academic achievement (Little, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989). The following
ethnographic analysis of two particular grade level collaborative teams
contributes to the understanding of these fundamental processes. The
intention of this dissertation is not to produce a traditional evaluation of
professional learning communities, but rather to explore teacher
collaborative practices within the context of a particular school organization
and to define how these practices are related to the production of expert
technical knowledge.
The questions guiding this research were:
1. How do teachers in teams organized as professional learning
communities acquire and articulate knowledge about teaching and
learning?
2. What is the nature of the knowledge produced?
3. What elements influence the establishment of a systematic way to
acquire and articulate professional knowledge among teachers?
6
Background of the Problem
A series of efforts to systematically restructure schools in the United
States for the purpose of boosting student achievement was fueled by a
seemingly national consensus that schools were failing their communities.
However, educational researchers such as Judy Warren Little (1982) and
Susan Rosenholtz (1989), who examined these restructuring efforts, raised
the important criticism that the academic success of students did not solely
depend on higher curricular standards or accountability pressure but
ultimately on the quality of teacher instruction in the classroom. Their
contribution highlighted the need to increase teachers’ capacity as a
precursor to producing higher student academic achievement. Furthermore,
the findings published by Rosenholtz (1989) stressed that systematic teacher
learning increased professional knowledge and this was a common
denominator in successful schools defined as learning-enriched schools.
In addition to the evidence provided by educational researchers,
advances in social theory related to organizational learning and systems
thinking (Senge, 1990) contributed to the redefinition of the school as a
learning institution and the teacher as a learner. This view conceptualized
organizational learning as “the product of social interaction [that] results in
organizational knowledge only when it becomes part of the collective wisdom
of the school” (Hanson, 2003, p. 276). Senge (1990) stated that “organizations
7
learn only through individuals who learn” and emphasized the role of the
organization in providing the means to increase “people’s commitment and
capacity to learn at all levels” (p. 4). This idea, promoted in the private sector,
was also applied to education where teachers, the ones closer to the
application of knowledge, lacked the mechanisms by which to acquire and
articulate knowledge together. The goal was to de-privatize teachers’
practices and to ameliorate the existing isolation in teachers’ professional
practice.
According to DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) PLC model, teachers in
schools functioning as PLCs are called upon:
to build a collaborative culture, engage in collective inquiry regarding
matters that impact student learning, participate in action research,
create continuous improvement processes, and help each other monitor
and improve upon results" (DuFour et al., 2004, p. 37).
DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) research supports the positive influence
PLC can have on student achievement, highlighting a collaborative effort to
increase teacher competency and skills with the purpose of meeting the
academic needs of students. The authors define six characteristics of
professional learning communities that include: (a) shared mission, vision,
and values; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative teams; (d) action
orientation and experimentation; (e) continuous improvement; and (f) results
8
orientation (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Their theoretical analysis summarizes
these components as essential to transform a school into a learning
community.
This collaborative process proposes a mechanism by which teachers
engage in dialogue and where such interactions can lead teams to better meet
the needs of students. However, collaboration (in the form of PLCs) has to be
critically analyzed to find out whether or not it is contributing to the evolving
state of teachers’ shared knowledge for the purpose of meeting the academic
expectancies of all students, and how this collegial interaction is
contextualized to serve the needs of particular settings. My study questions,
through empirical research, the claims of the literature supportive of
collaborative practices by examining both the processes and sociocultural
outcomes of structured and purposeful teacher collegiality as exhibited by
two grade level teams of teachers in an elementary school in Southern
California.
I began my field analyses attempting to understand how PLCs
produce, for the teaching profession, technical knowledge that parallels other
professions in content and process. What immediately stood out during my
participative observations of the collaborative meetings at the site was the
evident professional expertise of teachers, which was inconsistent with the
sociological literature regarding teaching as a profession. Scholars have
9
traditionally characterized teachers as lacking the mastery of an identifiable
and legitimate type of expert technical knowledge (Elliot, 1972; Freidson,
1986). As my field work progressed, I began to uncover evidence suggesting
that the expert knowledge held and employed by teachers may be produced
through a process different than that of the canons established in the long
standing professions (medicine, law, and divinity). When given ample time,
the teachers in my study built upon established efficacious personal
relationships to establish collegial interactions with one another, which
allowed them to produce technical expert knowledge that effectively
addressed the teaching and learning needs of their local school community.
Significance of the Study
Numerous studies have portrayed the relevance of establishing
collaborative teams of teachers in schools as a way to increase their technical
expertise and the achievement of students. However, little is known about
the sociocultural process needed to hold professional learning communities in
place. Scholars have voiced concern regarding the increasing role of
standardization and accountability; yet, little attention has been paid to
finding out what exactly teachers are doing within the context of their
collaboration and how those actions may be sensible to them within this
framework.
10
There is considerable need to specify the behaviors and meaning-
making of teachers involved in PLCs. To some, establishing PLCs as an
institutional mechanism validates their quest for school improvement.
However, little is known about the kind of technical knowledge that would
enable teachers to increase their professional expertise and learn how to
effectively work with students with different needs. Many schools, especially
those serving the urban poor, are under increasing pressures to ensure
students in every subgroup make annual yearly progress (AYP). Thus,
research that illuminates how this process is institutionalized and best
achieved is needed.
Many scholars have suggested that professional learning communities
hold promise (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Little, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Although the literature supports this kind of setting as one that would enable
teachers to share responsibility for the academic achievement of students and
through systematic collaboration promote student learning (Lasiter, 1996;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1994), little is known about the
impact PLC can have on teachers’ professionalism as it relates to their
mastery of technical knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Specifically, there
is empirical research that indicates that when schools are organized as PLC,
student achievement improves. However, less is known about the nature of
the knowledge being generated during collaborative meetings and the socio-
11
cultural conditions that enable professional development for the group and by
extension successful academic interventions for students. Thus, research that
illuminates this process is needed.
In Chapter 2, I will describe the available scholarship on professional
learning communities of practice that is relevant to this study. Chapter 3 will
provide a description of the methods used to study the way in which teachers
acquire and articulate knowledge together. In Chapter 4, I will describe the
events that led a school to reorganize its day for the purpose of collaboration.
Chapter 5 will provide an analysis of the conceptualization of knowledge and
accountability in teams organized as PLC. In chapter 6, I will provide an
overview of the ways in which dialogue is increasingly affecting the culture of
the school, the way teachers relate to each other. Finally, in Chapter 7, I will
summarize the findings of this research and discuss their implications for the
professional development of teachers.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): “The API is a single number, ranging
from a low of 200 to a high of 1000, that reflects a school’s, an LEA’s (Local
Educational Agency), or a subgroup’s performance level, based on the results
of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance and
growth of schools” (California Department of Education, 2010).
12
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): “Each state is required to develop and
implement a statewide accountability system that will ensure that all schools
and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined by NCLB.”
“The AYP targets increase until 2013–14 when all schools and LEAs must
have 100 percent of their students performing at the proficient level or above
on statewide tests” (California Department of Education, 2010).
Leadership Team Members: Leadership team members include the principal,
the assistant principal, one teacher per grade level, any teacher who has a
special assignment outside the classroom, and one teacher representing
special education.
Other Professional Educators: Other professional educators include the
school psychologist, the resource specialist, and occasional staff members
holding a long-term assignment.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC): Organizational practice that
institutionalizes non-instructional time for teachers to meet regularly and to
collaborate toward continued improvement with a shared focus on student
academic achievement and common learning goals and objectives.
(A): School Administrator
(DA): District Administrator
(2L): Second Grade Lead Teacher
(4L): Fourth Grade Lead Teacher
13
(2T): Second Grade Teacher
(4T): Fourth Grade Teacher
14
Chapter 2
Professional Learning Communities: Lessons from the Literature
School learning that produces desirable outcomes is a function of several in-school variables (school leadership, vision, culture, structure, strategy, and policy resources) interacting with supportive out-of-school variables (district, community, and government) (Fullan, 2001, p. 74).
Reforms in the United States and PLC
Over the last two decades, a growing body of literature has
substantially affected the way teacher learning is understood and
approached1. From the conception of the common school to the contemporary
debates over public schooling, multiple reform movements have attempted to
affect what teachers learn, how they acquire and articulate their learning,
and how this learning is applied within the context of their classrooms. At
the core of all of these reform efforts is the fundamental concern with the
relationship between teacher expertise and student academic achievement.
Those who share this interest have highlighted the need to improve the
working conditions of teachers and to upgrade their professional status as a
1 Teachers come to the classroom with varied experiences and knowledge bases (Lortie, 1975). How teachers learn and develop as professionals is a fundamental question that has motivated educational researchers and teacher educators for years (Darling-Hammond, 1995, 1999; Little, 1990, 1999; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). Research suggests that the knowledge generated from dialectic practices among teams of teachers about their teaching episodes leads to the implicit and explicit know-how of teaching, which ultimately guides teachers’ pedagogical choices (Berliner, 1988).
15
way to improve teacher performance and, by causal extension, student
performance (Darling-Hammond, 1995, 1999; Fullan, 2001, 2003; Lasiter,
1996; Liberman, 1988; Little, 1990, 1999; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1979; Riley
et al., 1995; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin,
1994). However, longstanding attempts to define a professional model for
teachers has proven difficult as the technological elements of teaching as a
profession cover a wide range of organizational functions such as
administration of time, behavior management, and institutional expectations.
This investigation will consider the characterization of teaching as a
profession and how it has been affected by the participation and involvement
of teachers in the context of one contemporary attempt to define and redefine
the profession of teaching—professional learning community (PLC) reforms.
Historically, such initiatives have focused on a wide range of aspects
regarding the professionalization of teachers. Some have targeted the
knowledge and skills of classroom teachers. Others are more concerned with
improving teachers’ collegial relationships. Still others are designed to affect
the attitudes and behaviors exhibited by teachers as professionals as well as
their status. Finally, there are reforms that have attempted to affect and
define teacher professional behavior through formal bureaucratic
mechanisms such as standardization, accountability, and certification
requirements (Riley et al., 1995). In all, although it has never been entirely
16
clear how teachers learn and how exactly the school as an institution shapes
this learning, researchers and reformers have seemingly reached the same
conclusion—if teachers are provided with meaningful opportunities to
increase their technical capacity, their learning will directly impact the
quality of their teaching and will, in turn, increase student academic
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1995).
The contemporary manifestation of this ongoing debate was fueled in
the 1980s by the publication of the A Nation at Risk report (U.S. Department
of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The
1980s saw a fundamental shift in the way the U.S. deliberated about
education. From the effective school reform movements of the 1970s and
1980s, the educational agenda shifted to a standards-based reform movement
predicated on the widespread and highly publicized indictment of the quality
of public education in the U.S. The National Commission on Educational
Excellence appointed by the Reagan administration claimed that the United
States was “at risk in international economic competition because of
education regress” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 33). This pronouncement of
undifferentiated mediocrity in schools across the US fueled political agendas
and change efforts. It served as a national catalyst for educational reform
attempts intended to improve the academic achievement of students. A
Nation at Risk (1983) shifted schools’ priorities to focus on providing a
17
standardized curricular experience for students across the US and to holding
schools, teachers, parents, and students responsible for demonstrable
learning outcomes. As a result, state and federal governments set in motion
several organizational mechanisms designed to boost student learning and
carefully monitor academic achievement: increasing instructional time and
the length of the academic year; defining academic benchmarks and grade
level expectancies; and enforcing the use of standardized testing and
requirements related to teacher training and expertise (DuFour & Eaker,
1998). In other words, the assumption was that by imposing external
accountability measurements, such as increased requirements for licensing,
time spent in the classroom, days in school, testing, and professional
prerequisites, the quality of teaching and student learning would be directly
correlated. Although the reform movement had the implied assumption of
providing consistency and direction, it was nothing new. And despite all of
the effort exerted and the millions of dollars invested in what became known
as the Excellence Movement, it brought about little change in either the
academic achievement of students or the overall quality of education in
schools (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
By 1990, the seeming inefficacy of the Excellence Movement prompted
another report, Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), which stipulated
that by the year 2000 six national goals would be achieved. These goals
18
included: (a) preparing all children to start school; (b) increasing the national
high school graduation rate to 90%; (c) measuring student academic
competency at specific grade levels; (d) raising the rank of students in the
United States in international comparisons, particularly in math and science;
(e) ensuring that all U.S. adults are literate, knowledgeable, and skillful; (f)
and maintaining public school systems that are free of drugs and violence
(United States Department of Education, 1994).
Congress amended this list and added two more goals: continued
professional development for the teaching work force and increased parental
partnership and involvement (Wilson & Daviss, 1994). Two common themes
began to surface in this new generation of reform efforts in what came to be
known as the Restructuring Movement (DuFour and Eaker, 1998). The first
theme was addressing student needs, specifically, measuring and ranking
their academic competency through standardized tests as a means to ensure
a better-educated and economically competitive society (Tyack & Cuban,
1995). The second theme was intended to increase the professionalization of
teachers by making a call for educators to assimilate new practices into an
“existing system of ideas about pedagogy and subject-matter knowledge”
(Nelson & Hammerman, 1996, p. 4). These two themes fostered several types
of school restructuring efforts including: site-based management, shared
19
decision-making, staff teams with shared planning time and shared
responsibility, advisory groups, and heterogeneous grouping of students.
For the purpose of this investigation, I will not focus on initiatives
related to the measurement of student academic progress. I will, however,
devote attention to the proposals intended to improve the teaching force.
Although the broad political directive to improve the quality of teaching
resulted in many different policies implemented at many different times, the
degree to which these policies resulted in demonstrable educational
improvements was inconsistent throughout the United States. DuFour and
Eaker (1998) state that, although the Restructuring Movement was rapidly
embraced by educators, the idea of increasing autonomy and authority for
educators to affect the decision making in matters of instruction, pedagogy,
and professional collaboration “have yet to be realized” (DuFour & Eaker,
1998, p. 8). Thus, its failure could, in part, be attributed to the lack of the
machinery needed to institute radical changes in what constitutes one of the
most complex and traditional institutions in society—the public school
system.
Historically, educators and educational researchers alike have paid
scant attention to the mechanisms in the school organization that support or
inhibit teacher learning (Little, 1990; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Metz,
1990; Rosenholtz, 1989). Furthermore, scholars have documented that
20
notwithstanding teacher professional learning as proposed in legislative
agendas, school districts have provided very little support for systematic
professional growth or learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Rosenholtz,
1989).
Concerns have been raised about the quality of our public school
teachers. Educational scholars and practicing educators have given voice to
the lack of formal approaches to teacher learning and reached the common
conclusion that teachers have traditionally lacked a shared technical culture
(Lortie, 1975; Little, 1982, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989). This assertion regarding
teachers’ expertise and collective knowledge implies the absence of a
systematic approach to teacher learning. It has placed teachers at the center
of the debate and fueled several attempts to increase teacher capacity,
stressing the need for a focused approach to teachers’ professional learning:
its role, its process, and its quality (Little, 1982; McLaughlin & Talbert,
1993).
The debate continues. In the current era of standardization and
accountability, the stakes are high for professional educators. The purpose of
this study is to better understand one of the reform efforts intended to affect
the way teachers acquire and articulate professional knowledge together; and
to determine how this proposed structure is affecting the professional identity
of teachers. This investigation begins by situating teaching within a
21
sociological framework that offers a systematic definition for what constitutes
a profession. Then, it provides an overview of the scholarship that explores
the challenges teachers have historically faced in obtaining and maintaining
a professional identity. Finally, this investigation reviews the existing
literature that focuses more specifically on contemporary attempts to
professionalize teachers through the PLC reform model.
The Sociology of Professions
Sociologists have long endeavored to define professions,
professionalism, and professionalization and have yet to come to an
agreement (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972; Freidson, 1986; Kelly, 1995; Larson,
1977). Their characterization of professionalism varies widely in matters that
include prestige, power, income, authority, compliance, and competence, to
mention a few. Thus, the existing confusion about the status of teachers as
professionals is in part produced by the lack of a precise understanding of
and definition for what constitutes professionalism.
The origin of the word profession dates back to the sixteenth century.
The term was first used to denote an occupation of high status requiring
some learned expertise, such as medicine, law, and divinity (Kelly, 1995).
However, sociologists argue that if linguistics are considered, the term
profession takes different connotation depending on its form, whether is
semantic, syntactic, or morphological. As a noun, the term profession is often
22
used as innate to those carrying some type of formal knowledge. Knowledge,
however, has a broad connotation that does not necessarily include formal
occupation or schooling. For instance, the term can be used in reference to the
conceptualization of any occupation by which a living is made ranging from
the long standing elite professions to any occupation at all, even prostitution
(i.e., the oldest profession) (Kelly, 1995).
As an adjective, the term professional carries a connotation of
expertise (Freidson, 1986). Thus, Olympic athletes, NASCAR drivers, and
Miss America contestants all became qualified professionals—professional
athletes, professional drivers, and professional beauties. As a verb, to
professionalize, or more specifically professionalizing, is the process by which
society historically defines the status and prestige of an occupation. It
involves a complex process of acculturation in which those participating gain
technical skills, a common identity, shared norms, and values associated with
becoming part of a professional group. It refers to the structural attributes
and characteristics exhibited by those involved in specific occupations (Kelly,
1995).
It is also relevant to this unfolding discussion to consider the term in
its active form, professionalism, which denotes the qualities or attitudinal
attributes of those who are recognized as practicing a particular occupation
(Riley et al., 1997). In the sociological literature, professionalism is not
23
defined historically but rather as a process constructed collectively through
commonalities among the professions. To put in different terms,
“professionalism is the way society institutionalizes expertise” (Abbot, 1988,
p. 323).
Larson’s (1977) scholarship asserts that distinct dimensions of
cognitive, normative, and evaluative qualities characterize the behavior of
professionals. Other scholars have concurred with this characterization and
maintain that professionals are carriers of formal knowledge, hold autonomy
and prestige, and have a commitment based on their service ethic (Abbott,
1988; Elliot, 1972; Freidson, 1986; Kelly, 1995; Larson, 1977).
Concurring with Larson and adding to the discussion related to the
cognitive dimension of what constitutes professionals, Freidson (1986) defines
them as carriers of formal knowledge; those who are involved in activities
that have a broad intellectual context. This characterization is generally
accepted by other sociologists, who also view the social and occupational
status of the professions as regulated by an arcane body of substantive or
technical knowledge (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972; Etzioni, 1969; Freidson,
1986; Larson, 1977). Furthermore, Freidson (1986) states that professionals
are those who “create, disseminate, and employ knowledge” (p. 13) ensuring a
systematic process of production and application of knowledge. He argued
that professionals are “subject only to the constraints of competent knowledge
24
and skill related to their tasks” (Freidson, 1986, p. 159). Other scholars agree
in regard to the relationship between professionalism and mastery of some
form of expert knowledge (Elliot, 1972; Freidson, 1986). Thus, the norm
established is that those who are part of the professional group must control
a body of knowledge particular to their field, which concurs with Larson’s
qualifying constituent of a profession: its cognitive element.
This sociological conceptualization is critical as I attempt to explain
teaching as a profession. Although teaching qualifies as a profession based on
the expertise and knowledge base held by teachers, teachers’ professionalism
has been questioned by sociologists when compared to the long standing
professions (medicine, law, and divinity) because of the apparent lack of a
socially identifiable and systematically codified body of shared technical
expertise.
I closely examined the cognitive dimension of teacher professional
behavior (knowledge). More specifically, I explored how the cognitive
dimension manifests itself in the substantive and technical practices of two
teams of teachers as they acquire and articulate knowledge together.
For the purpose of this investigation, I did not consider the normative
dimension (service ethics) or the evaluative dimension (autonomy and
prestige) attributed to professionals. Further research is needed to look at
how these dimensions relate to one another within the context of education as
25
exemplified in districts, schools, and classrooms, and how these elements
shape and reshape teachers as professionals.
The Sociology of Teaching as a Profession
Thus far, I have established a general conceptualization of what
constitutes the terms profession, professional, and professionalization. To
develop a working definition, I reviewed the sociological literature on
professions. What I discovered is that, although, sociologists do not
necessarily agree on a precise definition of what constitutes a profession,
there is general consensus around a cluster of associated traits: particularly
in the areas of authority, the organization of knowledge, and the service ideal
(Goode, 1969). For the purpose of this investigation, I was particularly
interested in the first two elements that characterize a profession: authority
and the organization of knowledge.
Authority in the Teaching Profession
Dan Lortie, in his discussion of control and autonomy in elementary
teaching, states that the allocation of authority in a school setting “is
monolithic, hierarchical, and concentrated" (Etzioni, 1969, p. 4). Charles
Bidwell et al. (1997) discuss the organization of the school and define it from
a segmentalist perspective. Specifically, they assert that division of labor
directly shapes teachers’ use, a social perspective based on relational
structures that define the organization of the school. For instance, although
26
teacher authority has been traditionally bound to the formalized bureaucratic
hierarchy of the school organization, it is arguable that this bureaucratic
authority is affected by the size of the school. For instance, in small schools,
teachers have better opportunities to exercise their authority in the decision-
making process of the school as opposed to large schools where bureaucratic
hierarchies are larger, stronger, and there is little opportunity for input
(Bidwell et al., 1997).
A further aspect considered in relational structures is client power,
which defines how clients (parents) interact and influence the decision-
making process of the school. Based on these two factors, size and relative
client power, Bidwell et al. (1997) characterize four types of authority
exercised in schools: autocracy, bureaucracy, collegiums, and market (p. 288).
The types of organizations proposed by Bidwell et al. (1997) have
distinct forms of authority exercised by teachers. Sociologists argue that most
schools function in the realm of autocracy and bureaucracy (Etzioni, 1969;
Lortie, 1975). Traditionally, school organizations evolved from the one-room
schoolhouse to institutions organized in complex hierarchies intended to meet
the increasing numbers of students. Teachers’ roles, however, have remained
relatively unchanged. The evolving state of compulsory schooling required
the creation of the cellular classroom where one teacher could manage an
increasing number of students. Hence, the organizational structure of the
27
school has perpetuated divided, isolated spaces where teachers are generally
regulated by layers of bureaucratic control.
Etzioni (1969) asserts in his sociological analysis of teaching that
authority’s powers are concentrated at the top of the structure. What this
implies is that teachers have minimal say in the decision-making of the
school and their performance is subject to the scrutiny of their immediate
supervisor, the principal. Nonetheless, the teacher is recognized as the
authority figure within the confines of his/her classroom. It is this perception
of instructional autonomy, scholars argue (Etzioni, 1969; Freidson, 1986;
Larson, 1977), that gives a sense of professionalism to teaching; yet, scholars
also recognize the fact that teachers are bound to the hierarchical
bureaucratic mechanisms that place them in a subordinate organizational
position, subject to the authority of the building administrator.
This form of authority becomes a mechanism of social control in which
the norms and values of other teachers or professional peers are
overshadowed by hierarchical authority structures of a bureaucratic
organization. In other professions, such as medicine, law, or architecture, the
professional autonomy exercised by the professional is subject to evaluation
by the professional group, the licensing board, and, ultimately, the client.
Traditionally in teaching, the idea of professional autonomy has been
28
problematized by the ultimate authority of building and district
administrators.
Organization of Knowledge in the Teaching Profession
The mastery of some form of esoteric knowledge unique to the
profession is directly correlated to the idea of authority, not in the form of
administrative positions or hierarchies, but by the codified agreements that
encapsulate a technical culture that is common to the professional group and
, in turn, governs the behavior (e.g., exercise authority) of those who belong to
the profession. In an attempt to streamline the often unwieldy definition of
professionals, sociologists have described them as “experts who applied
esoteric knowledge to particular cases” (Abbott, 1988, p. 4). For the purpose
of this investigation, I will refer to professionals as those who "create,
disseminate, and employ formal knowledge" (Freidson, 1986, p. 13).
Etzioni (1969) asserts in his seminal sociological investigation of the
professional status of teachers that teachers should be characterized as
“semi” professionals because the occupation “cannot point to an arcane body
of substantive or technical knowledge” (p. 24). A relatively large body of
empirical research has supported this assertion and characterized teacher
learning as developed through trial and error (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972;
Etzioni, 1969; Freidson, 1986; Larson, 1977; Lortie, 1975). The question is
whether teachers have any control as a group over the professional
29
knowledge they acquire, articulate, and codify, or whether this knowledge is
individually mastered by those who show an innate ability to teach. If
teaching is indeed an individual endeavor, then those who demonstrate
expertise in teaching do it not because of its norms, but because of its artistic
qualities—teaching as an art form—where there is no formal production,
application, and preservation of knowledge.
The lack of a unique and codified body of esoteric knowledge in the
teaching profession has been attributed to myriad factors that include, but
are not limited to, teachers socialization into and within the profession, the
function of the institution as mediator between knowledge and power, and
also, historical aspects that have, from the conception of the one-room school
house, denigrated the role of teachers in status, autonomy, prestige, and
earnings (Etzioni, 1969; Freidson, 1986; Larson, 1977; Lortie, 1975).
Socialization into and within the Profession
Phillip Elliot (1972) helped to develop a comparison of teaching and the
longstanding professions, which he distinguished as “occupational
professions” as opposed to “status professions” (pp. 14, 32). When considering
the status professions, he examines and develops the specific processes
through which neophytes come into the profession. Furthermore, he
delineates the way in which socialization occurs within the professional
group. Descriptions of these processes are highlighted by tones of rigor and
30
exclusivity. For instance, in medicine, entrance requirements for schooling
are coded with tones of rigor, competitiveness, and high academic
achievement. Furthermore, new graduates are expected to work under
someone else’s supervision for a lengthy period of time until they have
demonstrated competency and chosen a field of specialization. A similar case
can be made for those entering in law, divinity, or university teaching.
Such is not the case for teachers. Entrance requirements for education
programs are neither as competitive nor as demanding as those found in the
status professions. Also, after completion of such programs, , entering into
teaching does not require specialization through a graduate education. Thus,
when entering into teaching profession, neophytes to the school are often
given full responsibility for their own class with minimal prior exposure to
teaching pedagogy and/or the opportunity to have shadow an expert in the
field. Squires (1999) states that the lack of a strong socialization process in
teaching could be attributed to the assumption that everyone who comes into
teaching has had multiple years of exposure to and practice in some form of
teaching through their own schooling. Thus, the assumption is that teaching
is an everyday activity requiring no formal training (Squires, 1999).
Lortie (1975) asserts that for teachers “one's own personal
predispositions were not only relevant, but in fact, stood at the core of
becoming a teacher” (p. 79). His often cited sociological analysis of teachers as
31
professionals characterizes the socialization of teaching as an individual
endeavor that grows in isolation, undermining “the capacity for teacher
learning and sustained professional commitment” (Talbert & McLaughlin,
1994, p. 124). In fact, several reform movements such as Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (1994) and No Child Left Behind (2001) have attempted to
change the entrance requirements and qualification of teachers with the idea
that increasing these regulations would result in a better equipped teaching
force. Yet, these models have failed to provide a systematic approach to
professional development, perhaps due to the high demand for teachers at
different times
When we compare this practice of recruiting new teachers into the
profession with that of recruiting medical doctors or lawyers, we see a
fundamental discrepancy that intensifies the preconceived notion of teachers
lacking a shared technical culture.
Institutional Context of Teaching
In addition to the sociological aspects affecting teaching as a
profession, I also considered the historical context of the school as an
institution and its influence on teaching practices. The setting of the
classrooms, it is argued, has remained relatively unchanged since the
conception of the common school. The traditional setting of the school has
provided teachers with the structure needed to maintain control of the
32
classroom, maximize the use of instructional time, and to ensure the
instruction of pupils in numbers that would accommodate the increasing
demands of society (Cuban, 1993; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Scholars agree that
the “cellular” pattern of the classrooms has pervaded both the organization of
the school and the socialization of teachers (Cuban, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Tyack
& Cuban, 1995).
Through the establishment of institutional boundaries, a teacher-
centered approach to schooling has been the dominant approach in education,
which has not only shaped the traditional mode of instruction but also the
way teachers acquire and articulate professional knowledge. These structures
have provided the arrangement of the school, and therefore, affected the
organizational norms that govern teachers’ behavior (Cuban, 1993; Lortie,
1975). Thus, the mechanisms involved in creating the organizational
arrangement of the school form “the inner context within which individual
teacher beliefs and an occupational ethos worked their influences in shaping
a durable practical pedagogy called teacher-centered instruction” (Cuban,
1993, p. 260).
The organizational structure of the school has also institutionalized
arrangements that foster teacher isolation rather than teacher
interdependence, (Lortie, 1975). In this kind of setting, the transactions
33
expected from colleagues are limited to those highlighted by Little (1990): (a)
storytelling and scanning, (b) sharing, and (c) aid and assistance.
Thus, the way in which schools have been structured has created self-
contained classrooms in which teaching has been shaped by individual ability
rather than shared technical knowledge (Cuban, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Tyack &
Cuban, 1995). This is why teachers’ expertise varies widely across schools
and much of their expertise is attributed to individual motives as opposed to
structural systems or processes.
In traditional settings, the physical arrangements of schools bind
teachers to their classrooms and establish socio-cultural relations that are
not systemic, but rather isolated events under specific relations. The
traditional approach to the acquisition of a body of substantive knowledge in
teaching involves processes that deny teachers the opportunity to collectively
acquire a shared culture, confining them to the isolation of their own
classrooms. Thus, conservatism has permeated teacher learning and directly
affected the way teachers acquire and articulate professional knowledge; it
has subtracted opportunities that would ensure the collective growth of
teachers as professionals.
This kind of setting further exacerbates the arguable distance between
teachers’ shared technical culture and their identity as professionals, which
has been directly related to the prevalence of conservatism in the
34
occupational norms of teaching (Cuban, 1993). Teaching, as a profession, has
remained relatively unchanged from its conception. Traditional, conservative
practices and teaching styles are passed from generation to generation.
Under this frame of reference, reforms in the institutional context of
schooling have been attempted with various degrees of success and
sustainability.
One of these attempts, the subject of this study, has intended to
transform the isolation of teachers and privatization of practices. Professional
learning communities are based on a conceptualization “that recognizes that
school capacities must be grounded in the culture of the school and normative
behaviors of its staff” (Hord & Westbrook, 2000, p. 1). From this perspective,
the act of teaching radically evolves from a conservative practice that occurs
in isolation to a practice developed by a community of professionals who
interdependently acquire and articulate expert knowledge.
The Historical Status of the Teaching Profession
Before turning to a closer consideration of the PLC reform model, I will
take a moment to discuss the gendered nature of the teaching profession.
Gender, scholars argue, has played a significant role in the
professionalization of occupations, and it is noteworthy to consider that
sociologists refer to many of the occupations generally held by women (e.g.,
teaching, nursing and social work) as semi-professions (Etzioni, 1969).
35
The argument for the designation of teaching as a semi-profession is
rooted in the notion of professional authority. Etzioni (1969) argues that in a
school setting, men a have traditionally been more likely to assume an
administrative role and women more amenable to accept a submissive one.
Furthermore, women were perceived as less inclined to pursue organizational
status as opposed to men. Last, the perception has been that women
generally have fewer years of higher education, on average, than men.
As noted in historical records, from the industrial revolution to the
beginning of the 20th century, the United States saw the need to
accommodate an increasing number of students, affecting the way schooling
took place (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). More students required the expansion of
public schools, which in turn required teachers. Large numbers of women
were recruited into teaching through a comparison between teaching and
motherhood,. Furthermore, because the monetary compensation for teachers
was far behind from other professions, teaching held little appeal to men as
the head of the household. Teaching, then, was appealing to women who
often lacked the technical expertise needed to enter the status professions.
Rather, teaching became constructed as a calling associated with altruism
and service. In all, the gendering of the role of teaching as female has affected
the degree to which teaching has been recognized and organized as a
profession in the United States.
36
Organizing Schools for Teacher Learning
The conclusion is that the school, as an organization, has influenced
the behaviors of teachers through goals, roles, policies, and processes that
have enabled teachers to cope with multiple and, at times, conflicting
demands. Furthermore, in terms of structures designed to support teacher
learning, it has been established that the traditional model of the “egg crate
school” (p. 14) as suggested by Lortie (1975) does not promote
interdependence, but rather isolation and privatization of practices. Within
this frame of reference, two particular studies (Little, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989)
looked at the impact that collaborative dialogue and teamwork had in
building a knowledge base intended to address the particular academic needs
of students. These studies suggested that if teachers work collaboratively and
develop collegial relationships, the quality of teacher instruction in the
classroom improves. Rosenholtz (1989) stressed the notion that systematic
teacher learning and increased professional knowledge is a common
denominator in successful schools (defined as learning-enriched schools).
Other scholars have argued the need to organize schools for teacher
learning (Little, 1999). Judith Warren Little states that in schools with this
kind of organizational setting, teachers are provided with multiple
opportunities for interaction as well as conversation about each other’s work
and about each other’s students’ academic achievement. This form of
37
interaction establishes mechanisms through which teachers develop a
common, technical culture characterized by complex patterns of shared
meaning. Learning in this kind of setting becomes purposeful and directly
connected to the academic needs of the students within the locale. Thus, if
schools provide a systematic and sustained effort to study student work
coupled with a collective effort to determine how this work occurs given the
immediacy of the locale, then, teacher learning will occur systematically and
create the conditions for student academic achievement (Little, 1999).
Prominent scholars argue that promoting organizational arrangements
that encourage teacher collaboration in ways that parallel the collegial
behaviors commonly identified with the professions will promote learning for
both teachers and, by extension, students (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2010;
DuFour et al. 2004; Fullan, 2001, 2003; Lasiter, 1996; Liberman, 1988;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990, 1999; McLaughlin & Marsh,
1979; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).
Specifically, Little (1990, 1999) has defined teachers’ colleagueship and
collaboration as joint work, which implies a deliberate support system that
supplies favorable conditions for professional development. Darling-
Hammond (1999) states that in schools where such joint work is practiced,
the collaborative sessions become the agent that support new teachers. This
is an important feature of collaborative meetings. Once they are established
38
in schools, they systematically evolve to a state in which teachers develop a
collective sense of identity directly reconstructing their role within the
institution. Under such circumstances, even novice teachers adjust more
rapidly to the complexities of the profession and find in the group the support
needed to meet the expectancies without feeling isolated. Thus, the
structures found in collective learning could affect the socialization of
teachers, and scholars argue that they increase teachers’ technical capacity
making this a vital process in the attempt to meet the needs of all students
(DuFour et al. 2004).
In summary, educational research on how to reform education through
attending to teacher collegiality and learning in conversation with
sociological literature regarding teachers as professionals provides a frame in
which to consider the professional dimensions of teaching and how they
manifest themselves in the practice of teaching and learning (Darling-
Hammond et al., 1998; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). Practice, however, is
subject to both the particularities of individual approaches and/or the
institutional arrangements that either enable or inhibit its application.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
This investigation examines the practices of teachers involved in
collaboration, and it questions whether these practices are actually
translating into an increased professional identity in participating teachers.
39
The particular reform model used to explore the related issues of teacher
collaboration and learning in this study is PLCs as articulated by Richard
DuFour and Robert Eaker (1998) with the publication of their book
Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing
Student Achievement.
According to the authors, the ability of a school to function as a PLC
represents “the most promising strategy for sustained, substantive school
improvement” (p. xi). The authors state that teachers should have some form
of expertise in their specialized field, and not only pursue advanced training
but also remain current in their evolving knowledge base. Their assertion
views the knowledge base of teachers as dynamic, which paralleled empirical
research (Lieberman, 1988; Little, 1982, 1990; Fullan, 2003; Lasiter, 1996;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1979; Rosenholtz,
1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994) that supports the need
to increase the shared knowledge of teachers as a means of providing
learning enriched settings (Rosenholtz, 1989) for all school constituencies. It
must be noted that the underlying assumption of DuFour and Eaker’s (1998)
adoption of sociological characteristics of the professions for the purpose of
reforming educational practice is congruent with the idea that teachers have
not historically controlled a body of formal esoteric knowledge or a set of
related technical skills.
40
Moreover, DuFour et al. (2004) state that teachers participating in
collaborative teams work together and become engaged in collective inquiry
so that becomes the catalyst for action. According to the authors, action is
negotiated as an informal process of accountability where the
interrelatedness of teachers sustains continuous improvement in student
academic achievement. In sum, PLC reforms exhort teachers to refine their
existing practices and redefine their traditional organizational roles through
interdependence and teamwork. This model urges teachers and
administrators to engage in a collaborative effort of shared responsibility for
the academic achievement of students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Lasiter, 1996;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1994).
The aim of PLCs is to institutionalize collaboration in a systematic way
in order to increase teacher professional capacity and meet the academic
needs of all students. It calls for teachers to create a culture of
interdependence in which the quality of their interaction mediates
professional learning, increases teacher capacity, and improves instruction
(Little, 1982; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). Scholars supporting this
restructuring model advocate for a redefinition of the role of the teacher that
runs contrary to the state of “presentism, individualism, and conservatism”
in which teachers have traditionally operated (Lortie, 1975, p. 212).
41
Purpose of this Study
Given the promise of increasing teacher technical expertise through
the establishment of PLCs in schools, there is a need to explain how PLCs are
affecting the way teachers acquire and articulate knowledge together and to
demonstrate how the shared technical knowledge is evolving within the
context of this reform effort. Consequently, through this study I sought to
examine and better understand the complexity of the professional identity of
teachers., Specifically, I closely examined two teams of teachers to determine
the nature of the professional knowledge these teachers, participating in
PLC, acquire and articulate together. Through the lenses of accountability
and student academic achievement, this investigation attempts to explain
how the shared technical culture teachers are acquiring has affected their
professional identity.
In conclusion, the literature does support the implementation of PLCs
as a means of increasing teacher capacity in ways that meet student
academic needs. Moreover, research has documented that when teachers
collaborate and engage in meaningful dialogue, their collective competence
increases. What is missing is the understanding of how the widespread
notion of PLCs is being applied in collaborative meetings and how it is
affecting the professional identity of teachers as identified by a shared
technical culture. The debate over the technical nature of teaching continues.
42
More empirical work is needed to understand fully the effect of the
institutionalization of PLCs on the technical culture of teaching. It is this
problem that will be the central concern of the following dissertation.
43
Chapter 3
Methodology and Theoretical Orientation
The impossibility of pure experiences implies that we cannot reduce beliefs and preferences to mere intervening variables (Bevir & Rhodes, 2000, p. 5). The main focus of this dissertation study was to identify the functions
of PLCs from the perspective of two participating teams of classroom teachers
and to relate these associated behaviors to the production of professional
knowledge. I sought to understand how the social arrangement proposed
under PLCs was applied in collaborative meetings at one particular site and
how the practices associated with teachers’ collaboration shaped the
production of shared technical knowledge. The underlying theoretical frame
through which I produced an understanding of how these social
arrangements shaped teacher technical knowledge was a sociological
treatment of the school as an institutional organization shaping and being
shaped by the behaviors of social actors. In this study, I assumed teachers to
be social actors who engage in sociocultural behaviors represented by
collaborative practices whose praxis shapes and is shaped by the structures
of the school as an organization.
My intent was to explicate how teachers experience the contextual
influences proposed PLCs; how teachers make sense of their individual and
collective involvement with this reform effort; and how their involvement and
44
understanding informs their behavioral reactions in general and those
behaviors more specifically that produce a shared corpus of technical
knowledge.
Methodology
The methodology I used in this research was grounded in
interpretative theory. The intent of interpretative methodologies is not to
determine the frequency of particular social phenomena or the probability of
causation but to understand how and why they take place and, thus, to
identify the sociocultural patterns and/or relationships that occur as a result.
Becker (2005) states that interpretive approaches are intended to search for
the processes that produce sociocultural patterns.
The main focus of this investigation was the interaction found in
collaborative meetings within the context of PLCs. I chose an interpretative
approach to this study because the analysis depended on insights into the
symbolic structures teachers collectively achieve through collaboration
(culture theory), and how these symbolic structures are shaped by and, in
turn, shape teachers’ professional behaviors (practice theory) (Bevir &
Rhodes, 2000).
Erickson and Educational Interpretive Research
For the purpose of this study, I choose a qualitative approach to
research on teaching as proposed by Fred Erickson. Erickson’s approach
45
involves the application of ethnographic methods within the epistemological
framework of qualitative theory. Relying heavily on data generated through
participant observation of a particular case, the researcher deconstructs the
symbolic system and interaction of social actors in order to generate social
scientific understandings of group-level behaviors.
The significance of interpretative approaches in educational research
has been to generate systematic understandings of:
(a) the nature of classrooms as socially and culturally organized
environments for learning, (b) the nature of teaching as one, but only
one, aspect of the reflexive learning environment, and (c) the nature
(and content) of the meaning-perspective of teacher and learner as
intrinsic to the educational process. (Erickson, 1986, p. 10)
I found these methodological assumptions to be most appropriate
during my research study as I sought to understand (a) the nature of PLCs as
professionally and socially organized environments for learning, (b) the
nature of the discussions taking place during PLC meetings as one, but only
one, elicitor of technical knowledge, and (c) the content and nature of the
meaning-perspective of those involved in PLCs. I selected Erickson’s (1986)
approach to interpretative research because of its suitability for a qualitative
analysis, one that allowed me to participate and interact with teams of
teachers in an attempt to understand the “specifics of meaning and action in
46
social life” (p. 156) that I witnessed during collaborative meetings. My task
was to deconstruct group relations in teams defined as PLCs and to explain
and explore how teachers became engaged in behaviors and practices
intended to substantiate their technical knowledge.
I was interested in defining the specific structure of teacher
collaboration and the meaning-perspectives of each participant as they
became involved in this process. Specifically, I was interested in better
understanding how teachers made sense of PLCs and how the
implementation of this reform affected the acquisition, articulation, and
reproduction of shared professional knowledge within the context of their
collaboration. Professional learning communities served as a frame of
reference, providing the social context in which the production of meaning
affected and was affected by the shared learned system of interaction.
Considering Erickson’s (1986) analysis of interpretative theory, I
focused on the action of social actors as the primary source of data collection.
The social processes I explored constituted the experiences and of two teams
of teachers interacting with one another within the context of PLC reform. I
focused on the interpretations of meaning held by the teachers engaged in
constructive dialogue during the collaborative process. The understanding of
this process was crucial as I gathered and scrutinized data through analytical
induction and reflection.
47
Research Methods and Design
The Research Site
The district chosen for the study was City Unified School District; a
pseudonym was used for the district where the study took place for the
purpose of confidentiality and to avoid pre-conceived ideas based on location,
socio-economic factors, and ethnic groups represented. City Unified School
District is the largest school district in its county and one of the ten largest
districts in California. It has been recognized for the quality education it has
provided area students over the last120 years. At the time this study took
place, the district was comprised of thirty-one elementary schools, seven
intermediate/middle schools, five comprehensive high schools, a middle
college high school, and three alternative schools with an enrollment of over
52,000 students. The district was selected because of its approach to the
institutionalization of non-instructional minutes within the school day for the
purpose of collaboration. Chapter Four will address in more detail the process
by which this formal mechanism was instituted.
Getting Access to the School and Case Study Teams
Prior to identifying the school, I met with district officials to delineate
the purpose of the study and to acquire the standard permission to conduct
the investigation. I carried out my fieldwork from February 1, 2009 through
June 30, 2009. To select my research site, I relied on the suggestions of
48
district administrators. As explained by Bearman (2005), in working through
gatekeeping institutions like the central administrative offices of a school
district, I placed myself at risk of refusal. However, both the assistant
superintendent of curriculum and instruction and the director of elementary
education recommended a particular elementary school because of the length
of time its administration and teachers had invested in implementing PLCs.
District and school administrators, in conjunction with teachers, had spent
countless hours and a multitude of resources to promote the idea of teacher
professional collaboration time under the umbrella of PLCs.
To maintain confidentiality, I also assigned a pseudonym for the school
in which I conducted my study, City Elementary. City Elementary,
statistically representative of a vast majority of urban schools in Southern
California, serves students in grades kindergarten through six following a
single-track, year-round calendar (see www.cde.ca.gov/ds). During the 2007-
08 school year, it had an enrollment of 836 students, including 12% in special
education and 37% qualifying for English language development., At the time
of the study, 47% of its student body qualified for free and reduced price
lunch.
City Elementary School achieved a 2008 academic performance index
(API) score of 788 and met all 2008 adequate yearly progress (AYP) criteria.
California’s accountability system rates schools based on their performance
49
and academic progress. The numeric index for the API ranges from 200 to
1000. Each school has specific target objectives that must be met yearly until
they reach 800, which is considered proficient. On the other hand, AYP are
federal accountability requirements that indicate if schools are meeting
common standards of academic performance. It considers the academic
growth of different student subgroups, as well as the school’s increase on API.
In 2009, although City Elementary’s API increased 11 points to 799, the
school only met 19 out of 21 categories of its AYP criteria in the subgroups
that included English learners and Hispanic or Latino students. Therefore, it
was placed under watch for program improvement (PI) status in 2009–2010.
The schools that receive federal funds are identified for PI if they have not
met AYP targets for two consecutive years. Thus, if the discrepancy recurs in
the current academic year (2009–10), City Elementary will be placed under
PI status.
This school was operating under the umbrella of PLCs; it had
reorganized its school days to allocate instructional minutes for collaborative
purposes. Teachers’ need for interaction at this site came as a result of the
academic needs of a changing student population. After the school was
identified, I met directly with the principal to explain the purpose of the
investigation. A pseudonym is also used to keep his identity confidential;
thus Mr. Pal (A) will be used throughout the study. City Elementary was Mr.
50
Pal’s first assignment; he had been leading the school for five years. He was
delighted to have the school chosen for the study, and he asked to speak with
his teachers first before allowing the investigation to take place. In
subsequent meetings, he explained that he had presented to his leadership
team, comprised of one lead teacher for every grade level, and his assistant
principal the opportunity to participate in the research project. He had asked
for two grade level teams to volunteer to be the subject of analysis in the
investigation, one from lower grades (Kindergarten through third grade) and
one from upper grades (fourth through sixth grades). Having only volunteers
as subjects could have restricted the validity of the findings by providing only
one point of view. However, to overcome the existence of possible bias from
those who did not want to be part of the investigation, I chose to accept the
principal’s approach in selecting the grade levels. The two grade levels that
volunteered to become part of the study were the second and fourth grade
level teams.
The unit of analysis in this investigation was, thus, a group or team of
teachers. I adopted Metz’s approach to conducting qualitative organizational
analyses of schools through choosing two comparative units of analysis
within the same environmental frame (1986). My study compared two grade
level teams at an elementary school (Table 1). The composition of the teams
was: one team of seven second-grade teachers and another team of four
51
fourth-grade teachers. In both teams, teachers’ individual experience ranged
from three to twenty-four years in education.
Table 1 Description of Participating Subjects
Grade Level Teacher Pseudonym
Total Years Teaching at
City Elementary
Total Years Teaching Gender Current
Lead Teacher
Second
Lisa 6 6 F Yes
Carol 5 5 F No
Mary 12 23 F No
Jane 15 20 F No
Cynda 13 13 F No
Becky 3 7 F No
Liz 5 5 F No
Fourth
Ron 7 15 M Yes
Phil 6 5 M No
Karen 24 24 F No
Correen 8 8 F No
The teams represented two fundamental organizational perspectives
found in most elementary schools, that of lower grade and that of upper grade
teachers. The number of students per classroom and the number of
participating teachers in each grade level provided me with insights into
their respective differences. The particularities that made each team unique
allowed me to establish patterns validating how teachers made sense of their
52
participation in PLCs and whether their participation gave any indication of
common themes under the umbrella of technical knowledge. By studying two
teams of teachers within the same school, I sought to capture and illuminate
both similar and unique socio-cultural behaviors within teams of
collaborative teaching professionals.
As noted in Table 1, in the second grade team, teachers’ individual
experience in the classroom ranged from five to twenty-four years. All second
grade team members were female and some had served in a different
organizational capacity, including one, Mary, who had served for two years as
a teacher on special assignment and another one, Jane, who had served as
literacy coordinator for a number of years before being reassigned to the
classroom. Four of the second grade teachers had spent their entire
educational careers at City Elementary. The other three had taught in other
schools in the same district.
In the fourth grade team, the teachers’ classroom experience ranged
from five to twenty-three years. The team was composed of two female
teachers and two male teachers. For one of the teachers, Phil, teaching was
his second career, after a successful career in the business sector. One of the
teachers, Ron, had moved from another district and joined City Elementary
in 1999. The other two had taught at the same school, City Elementary,
throughout their careers.
53
Data Collection and Field Analysis
To gather data, I applied Glesne’s approach to understanding data by
being there through participant observation. My intent was to establish a
trusting relationship with the participants, so that they could see me, not as
threatening but as attempting to substantiate how their actions corresponded
to their words and the body of literature supporting PLCs. Moreover, I chose
not to fully immerse myself in their meetings, so that I could identify the
meanings associated with their dialogue and highlight the patterns found in
both teams. I particularly employed Glesne’s approach to of participant
observation in which interaction between researcher and participant is
minimized to informal encounters and interviews and, thus, most of the data
is gleaned from observations (Glesne, 1999). This approach dovetails with
Erickson’s (1986) description of an ethnographic study where the researcher
attempts to capture the intricacies of relationships and behaviors in order to
capture the associated meaning actors construct together.
To achieve triangulation, I used a combination of qualitative methods.
First, the investigation employed participant observation in real time, in
teachers’ natural setting, and recorded in systematic field notes. Second, the
study included formal interviews and casual conversations with participating
teachers. Last, I collected data from artifacts that included written
54
documents from participating teachers, the school, and the district and
analyzed them (Glesne, 1999).
As a researcher, I knew that my employment as a new administrator
with the district could have influenced the interaction of subjects during my
observations. Thus, when I introduced myself to the grade level teams, I
made sure that all participating teachers understood my role as a researcher,
not a district entity. Furthermore, I explained the purpose of my study, the
importance of their contributions, and proceeded to acquire their permission
to conduct the investigation and allow me to be part of their collaborative
meetings. I also needed to define my role as a researcher. I knew I was going
to be observing teachers’ interaction; however, the question was whether I
was in any way going to participate during their meetings or become an
active member during collaboration. I knew I had definite options regarding
my role as a researcher from complete participant to complete observer as
proposed by Junker (1960). Nevertheless, I had a clear perspective of my role
as a learner, which clarified my sense of self from the beginning (Glesne,
1999). Thus, I chose to position myself as an observer , I was interested
primarily in learning about teachers’ roles and interactive patterns within
the context of collaborative meetings. I also knew that my role within the
district could have produced opportunities for interaction with my subjects
related to district’s businesses, yet, I was committed to maintain the
55
objectivity of my role. Hence, I discussed in detail my role with my subjects
and informed them of my intent. My aim was to ratify a marginal position
“thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time
minimizing the dangers of over-rapport” (Hammersley & Atkinson, pp. 112,
1995).
As my fieldwork evolved, I became engaged in situations where pure
social interaction took place. These instances, whether at the school setting
during students’ lunch time or at the end of the day or if I happened to run
into one of my participants at a district-sponsored event, provided me with an
opportunity to build rapport and a trusting relationship with my participants
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). The rapport I established with the
participants in the research setting was in no way threatening or adversarial
, but rather that of a learner in search of answers.
From the perspective as an observer as participant, I spent time at the
school when meetings related to PLC were held. There were two distinct
meetings, one for each grade level on different days. I also observed the
school in various locations—front office, playground, staff lounge, classrooms,
and hallways—to contextualize the environment in which PLC meetings took
place. While at the meetings, I used a digital recorder to capture all
conversations taking place, which enabled me to take extensive notes
regarding interaction, body language, and other related factors accessible
56
only by being present. I transcribed the notes each evening and during the
weekend.
I conducted participant observations for a period of five months. The
meetings scheduled for observation included: grade level collaborative
meetings, meetings during early release days, professional development
meetings, parent conferences, and open house meetings. Data collection
included the following types of documents: meeting agendas, assessments,
evaluations, teacher feedback, summaries, district documents, school
communications, grade level communications, grade level and individual
emails, notes, and other forms of written expression used within the context
of the grade level. Participant observation and document analysis provided
me with the insights I needed to analytically describe the collaborative
practices of both teams.
I also conducted a series of interviews with staff members: team
members, grade level leaders, principal, and assistant principal. I
interviewed district entities including: the director of curriculum and
instruction-elementary education, the deputy superintendent of instructional
services, and the superintendent of education. Interviews lasted about 45–90
minutes. Interviews were conducted formally (previously arranged after
school hours) and informally (on-the-spot as the situation emerged). They
included open and unstructured dialogue as well as open ended questions
57
related specifically to their role, participation, and understanding of PLCs.
Table 2 provides an itemized representation of the number of interviewed
participants and their organizational positions.
Table 2 Organizational Positions of Participants Interviewed
City Elementary District Office Total
Principal 1 1
Teachers 11 11
Superintendent
1 1
Deputy Superintendent Of Instructional Services
1 1
Total Number of Participants
12 2 14
Table 3 provides an itemized representation of the number of
interviews with each participating subject. The interviews provided me with
background information. I ensured that all such information was considered
before, during, and after the interview, as I tried to clarify discrepancies
between conceptual knowledge and its application. Interviews also helped me
to clarify the social structures that existed at the time of reorganizing the
school as a PLC.
58
Table 3 Quantitative Representation of Interview Occurrences
City Elementary District Office Number of Participants
in this Category
Total
Principal 3 1 3
Teachers 2 11 22
Superintendent
1 1 1
Deputy Superintendent Of Instructional Services
2 1 2
Total Number of Interviews District-wide
27
As I searched for common themes, these qualitative interviews served
as the foundation to construct meaning. They provided an overview of the
formal and informal structures existent at the school from the eyes of the
social actors. Furthermore, interviews allowed me to enter into the world of
participants by delineating social structures, theoretical approaches, and
political dynamics that are often implicitly understood. The sum of the
observations, the interviews, and the document analyses allowed me to
triangulate and infer how participating actors shared commonalities in their
technical language and how the intended meaning and meaning-making
translated into the application of this shared professional knowledge. I also
59
gained insight into how participants viewed their role within the context of
the institution and how this perception affected the institution-at- large.
Data Analysis
Interpretative analysis as developed by Erickson (1986) allows for the
systematic production of a social scientific explanation to be constructed from
qualitative data. I started data analysis by collecting and organizing all
transcripts of the collaborative meetings that I observed as well as the semi-
structured interviews I conducted with each team participant. As I did so, I
endeavored to locate myself in the context of their collaboration. What was
happening during this time was made understandable by directly watching
teachers’ interaction, attentively listening to what was said, and by asking
questions. Thus, I attempted to articulate the perspective of teachers as local
actors, to be sensitive to the meaning they have created together, and to
make sense of their condition as it occurred in real time.
I then employed Miles and Huberman’s (1984) approach to qualitative
analysis in my systematic treatment of the data. In my first wave of data
analysis, data collection, I generated field notes and interview transcripts as
soon as possible after leaving the field. I made a conscious effort to maintain
a self-awareness of what was learned, how it had been learned, and “the
social transactions that inform the production of such knowledge”
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1984, pp. 101). I tried to ensure the most accurate
60
description of events by encapsulating all ideas I had and making sure I kept
an electronic journal with me to write down any thoughts about the process,
the data itself, or the analysis.
One of the critical qualifiers of interpretative research is the ability of
the researcher to encapsulate the transactions between social actors as well
as their interpretation of reality (meaning-making), which becomes causal for
action. It was my task to explicate the understanding that teachers share
collectively as much as their individual characterization of PLCs at their site.
Each participating teacher held a unique experience that, when
contextualized, shed light on the institutionalization of collaborative practices
at one school site. Thus, doing my observations, while I was recording the
interaction among participant subjects, I was also writing down notes of
insights generated from such things as the body language of participants,
silent moments, location of meetings, arrangement and situational patterns,
nonverbal communication, and other forms of interaction that is accessible
only by being present.
Throughout my time in the field, I made a point of frequently
reviewing the interview transcripts and my field notes. During this period of
rereading and revision, I underlined those quotations that I felt where
helping to establish a pattern of socio-cultural beliefs and behaviors. I created
a file system of patterned themes that later would allow me to construct the
61
story. As I read the notes, I started to see the connection between the stories
told by members of different teams as well as administrators and district
personnel. I spent hours listening to the recording of the conversations that
took place during collaboration meetings. This careful analysis of the data
allowed me to create both a sequencing of events that led to the school’s
implementation of PLC reforms and an opportunity to establish common
themes that recurred in teachers’ interactions.
One of the final steps was the transferring of all field notes,
transcriptions, and applicable passages from Microsoft Word documents into
NVivo 9, a computer software program designed for qualitative research.
Using NVivo 9 software as well as my own interpretation allowed me to
frame the social actions. This process enabled me to conduct interpretative
research and to critically analyze the meaning and behaviors intended to
change the way in which teachers acquire and articulate professional
knowledge.
In summary, I used continual narrative description to capture the
phenomena observed during this study. Going back to examining the
narrative of events allowed me to codify the data in such a way that the
richness of teachers’ interaction and their sense making process created
different frames of interpretation before, during, and after their PLC
meetings.
62
As the analysis progressed, I tried to clarify my guiding questions in
light of the literature review. In particular, I tried to determine whether my
findings were in line with the literature or if they challenged previous
scholarship. This process enabled me to discover patterns, correlations,
discrepancies, and common themes. Part of this process included time away
from the data, discussions with my advisor, and then rereading the data to
ensure validity. This systematic approach allowed me to categorize
analytically patterned themes related to the acquisition, articulation, and
transferring of professional knowledge.
I gradually integrated theoretical assumptions with my data, looking
to develop patterns and/or discrepancies, making sure I accounted for the
perspectives held by those directly affected by the institutionalization of
PLCs. In doing so, my task as researcher was to determine how these
assertions and/or analytic constructs were interconnected and what elements
were considered significant to the production of technical knowledge for
teachers. The assertions I arrived at varied in scope and level of inference.
However, to ensure validity to this study, I considered closely each of these
analytic constructs within the given setting and surveyed the evidence at
hand, as well as considered my theoretical and personal assumptions as a
researcher.
63
Conceptual Frame for Emergent Analysis
Although I had specific categories of observations and conceptual
issues of research interest prior to entering the field, once I started doing my
fieldwork, induction and deduction were in constant dialogue. During my
participant observations, I noticed specific patterns, themes, and social
phenomena that were not clearly defined until I begun to describe the specific
structure of occurrences during my writing process. Even then, it was not
until after transcribing and making sense of the meaning-perspectives held
by participating teachers that common patterns begun to take shape. By
analytically identifying specific causal linkages through an ongoing iterative
process between data and theory, I developed possible social scientific
explanations for the patterns I was discerning.
My approach during observations, interviews, transcribing, writing,
and organizing this study included an analytical description of how events
have taken place during PLC meetings; how these meetings have been
organized and become part of the social organization of the school; how the
contextualization of PLCs fit in at other system levels; and how they have
affected the way in which professional learning occurs for teachers involved
in this process.
64
PLC as Applied Theory
In order to understand the construction of learning taking place during
collaborative meetings, I considered my empirical data within the frame of
the reform effort proposed by DuFour and Eaker (1998), PLCs,. I further
organized my inquiry of professional learning by attending to the following
issues: (a) how teachers function when organized in teams defined as PLCs;
(b) how teachers acquire and articulate knowledge together; (c) how teachers
construct meaning together and make sense of their togetherness; and (d)
how the institution is transforming and affecting the collective identity of
teachers.
Qualifying Elements of PLC
To further my analysis, I explored the ways in which formal and
informal processes of the school organization and environment influenced the
activities of teachers I was observing, as they acquired and articulated
knowledge together (Erickson, 1986). More specifically, I employed the four
types of organizational features that Little (1990) identified as particularly
influential in the co-production of technical knowledge in schools: (a) the level
of joint responsibility held by teachers, (b) teachers’ individual and collective
participation in defining their curriculum, (c) the salience of teachers’ grade
level, and (d) the frequency of evaluation and other forms of feedback. I
considered these features as elicitors of knowledge production and of the
65
collegiality existing in those teams associated with PLCs. Additionally, I used
the organizational features that Cooper (1988) identified as key to the
creation of professional knowledge and technical skills in the teaching
profession to interpret knowledge acquisition and articulation. Cooper (1988)
highlights these elements as qualifiers of a professional culture, which I
analytically deconstructed in the interactions and collaborative meetings of
teachers:
1. a code of ethics, implicit and explicit, practiced by all team members;
2. a set of standards defining teacher professionalism and knowledge
acquisition and articulation;
3. an account of practices intended to meet student needs—
accountability, assessments, common best practices, differentiated
instruction;
4. communication among team members—commonalities and differences;
5. processes in place to acquire and articulate common shared technical
knowledge;
6. collegiality conveyed among team members—interchange of ideas;
7. a focus on department and grade level meetings;
8. interdependence among team members;
9. professional development—individual and collective;
10. relationships to one another and to the group;
66
11. support provided by administration; and,
12. induction process in place, explicit or implicit, used by the department.
The use of a frame crafted by combining the work of both Little and
Cooper provided me with a guide that highlighted the most salient features of
professional knowledge production. However, the interpretative feature of
this study allowed me to look beyond the specificity of any of the unfolding
structures of the PLC reform and examine the meaning and meaning-making
activities shared by team participants. By doing so, this study contributes to
the discussion of knowledge acquisition and articulation in the teaching
profession as it relates to and differs from that of other professions, and adds
depth to the academic and public discussions about the technical competence
of the teaching profession that is often couched solely in terms of test scores,
performance standards, and professional accountability measures (Bryk et
al., 1993).
Also, highly influential was Metz (1990), who performed an
interpretive study of both the many similarities and the vast differences
revealed when comparing the academic achievement of different ethnic
groups in high schools in the United States. Metz (1990) concluded that,
although high schools across the US might employ similar formal structures
and technical procedures, the cultural assumptions and meaning-making
that guide the behavior within these structures varies widely among schools.
67
Comparatively, although the structure proposed by the commercialized
approach to teacher learning (PLC) makes overarching general assumptions,
my study captured both the particularities and the patterned nature of
events related to teachers’ attempt to co-create knowledge and to the
development of a specific set of technical skills by two teams of teachers
organized as a PLC at a particular public elementary school.
As I considered these theoretical assumptions, I also examined Meyer
and Rowan’s (1977) application of an institutional perspective to the analysis
of organizations. I turned to their work for the understanding of how the
proposed reform, PLCs, become institutionalized at the district and school
level. They define as rationalized myths those procedures and rules that
become existent and provide the formal structure to the establishment of
reform efforts, such in the case of PLCs. What PLCs propose is a change from
teachers’ isolated instruction controlling an arcane body of substantive or
technical knowledge (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972; Etzioni, 1969; Freidson,
1986; Larson, 1977) to a team of professionals whose shared technical
language and common practices become the norm of the group; from
traditional practices within the boundaries of the egg crate classroom (Lortie,
1975) to creating a collective vision of trust and support; from the
perpetuated idea of “my students” to the renewed belief in “our students”
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998); from a school functioning within institutional
68
limitations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Riehl, 2000; Scott, 2001) to creating a
master schedule based on the needs of students and the learning process of
teachers; and, last, from the idea of isolated learning by individual teachers
to becoming a PLC (Darling-Hammond et al., 1998; DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1982; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Rosenholtz,
1989; Senge, 1990).
The interaction found in collaborative meetings involves teachers as
social actors, attempting primarily to make sense of their work environment,
thus, the underpinning sociocultural theoretical framework I brought to this
study combined culture theory (how teachers made sense of that they did)
with organizational theory (how this sense making was influenced by
institutionalized sociocultural structures).
A Cultural Perspective on the Applied Theory of PLC
The cultural currency found in classrooms, as discussed by Varenne
and McDermott (1998), served as a model to analytically reconstruct the
cultural currency found in groups of teachers as they interacted with one
another given the constraints of the traditional classroom. Varenne and
McDermott (1998) provide a provocative criticism of the schooling process in
the United States with a focus on the notion of success and failure for
students in the US, not through the lens of individual characteristics, but
from an analytical interpretation of culture as the means by which success
69
and failure are produced and reproduced in schools across the United States.
Considering the culture of teaching trait as salient, pervasive, and
characteristic to teachers as professionals (see Lortie, 1975) allowed me to
focus not on individual behaviors, but on the culture that acquired them, the
culture that arranged their collaboration (McDermott & Varenne, 2006).
As McDermott and Varenne (2006) stated, “Cultural analysis, like
school reform, requires we take persons seriously while analytically looking
through them—as much as possible in their own terms—to the world with
which they are struggling” (p. 7). However, although human behavior is
shaped and molded by cultural forces, such as in the case of teachers
historically bound to the isolation of their classrooms, I will argue that they
have, in turn, transformed the same institution that once constrained their
acquisition and articulation of professional knowledge (Ortner, 2006). Put in
other words, teachers who have been subject to the structural constraints of
the schooling process find themselves involved in practices that restore “the
actor to the social process without losing sight of the larger structures that
constrain (but also enable) social action” (Ortner, 2006, p. 3).
This body of theory was crucial in enabling me to consider not only the
interaction found in collaborative teams but also the structures in place that
either elicited or inhibited the acquisition and articulation of technical
knowledge. Yet Ortner (2006) stated, “A theory of practice is a theory of
70
history” (p. 9), which is why I had to look closely at the historical variables
that have influenced the isolation and privatization of practices in teachers.
Thus, in order to fully grasp the correspondence found between culture and
practice theory, I framed this study within traditional sociological
understandings of the school as an organization.
Institutional Perspective on the Applied Theory of PLC
To better understand the organizational context shaping teachers’
learning, I relied on prominent sociologists of organizations—Richard Scott,
Chester Bernard, and Charles Bidwell. Their understanding of organizations
helped me to develop an overarching conceptual framework to guide my
thinking, data collection, and data analysis. Scott provides an overview of the
various sociological definitions of formal organizations grounded in three
different theoretical traditions: rational system, natural system, and open
system perspectives. Each provides a unique conceptual understanding of
organizations, from collectivities that are highly formalized to the pursuit of
specific goals (rational systems), to those seeking to survive (natural
systems), and those viewed as “coalitions of interest groups highly influenced
by their environments” (Scott, 1992, p. 26). Although conceptually distinct, all
three perspectives share a set of underlying assumptions about the basic
elements that constitute a formal organization—goals, structures,
71
participants, technology, and environment, which I carefully considered as I
attempted to make sense of the data and identify existing patterns.
My thinking about the concept of desired objectives or goals in an
organization was influenced by Barnard’s view of organizations. Although
Barnard was an executive, his conceptualization of organizations was one of
the “first systematic attempts to outline a theory of organization” (Scott,
1992, p. 62) in the United States. Prior to introducing Weber’s ideas, he
stressed that a cooperative system must exist in organizations in order for
the organization to survive. He asserts that although goals can be imposed
from top-down (API and AYP), they depend directly on willing compliance
from the bottom-up (student achievement).
Under this frame of reference, the organizational structures of the
school govern teachers’ behavior, and, thus, shape the way teachers acquire
and articulate professional knowledge through goals, norms, policies, roles,
and processes (Cuban, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Scott, 1992; Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
In turn, teachers have been able to exercise their expertise and provide
students with an opportunity to learn and achieve. The structural setting in
which this process— teaching and learning—takes place has institutionalized
a framework that traditionally has divided the school into self-contained
classrooms in which teaching has been shaped by isolation and privatization
of practices (Cuban, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Thus, to
72
better understand the context shaping the acquisition and articulation of
technical knowledge in teachers, I reviewed the structures that have
traditionally bound together a school, bureaucracies.
The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to identify and define
bureaucracy as a type of social organization. His seminal definition of a
bureaucracy was that of social groups, consisting of positions and activities,
whose function was to service and maintain the organization itself—one that
provided the means by which a specialized administrative staff directs the
efforts of the organization (Scott, 2001). Charles Bidwell (1965) was one of
the first to apply the model of the bureaucratic organization to the school
setting where teachers are subject to the control of an administrative
framework in which their autonomy is limited to their classroom. The
establishment of bureaucratic layers in schools was designed to facilitate
system requirements. They provided the means by which schools are
organized and fulfill their functions in society. Bidwell argued that there is
an inherent tension in the structure of the school, which binds teachers to
general rules and a hierarchy, yet simultaneously provides them with
individual choice in applying technical expertise to matters of instruction.
This heteronomous professional organization provides the arrangements that
allow schools to handle the complex and uncertain tasks of teaching and
learning. Furthermore, my approach to looking at teachers’ cooperative
73
practices borrows from the perspective found in neo-institutionalism’s
approach to thinking about organizational behavior. Hanson (2003)
highlighted the different mechanisms by which institutions are able to
accomplish their objectives, including the role of regulative, normative, and
cognitive elements. I closely considered his theoretical discussion to
understand the role of the institution in establishing collaboration as a
means for teacher learning.
First, when discussing the regulative factor, Hanson (2003) argues
that “[it] plays a stabilizing role by prescribing actions through formal and/or
informal rules that establish, monitor, and sanction activities” (p. 281). Judy
Warren Little (1982) provides an analysis of the formal and informal
structures that influence collegial behaviors in groups of teachers. The formal
mechanisms in place emphasize focus and concreteness, which Little defines
as part of symbolic systems. Formal mechanisms are represented by the
organizational structures in place, those that define the allocation of time
and specific place where teachers meet to collaborate. They also specify the
focus of such meetings as they relate to student outcomes. Formal
mechanisms of control are also intended to regulate both teacher and student
performance such as in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), which in
Section 1119 described the qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals.
Furthermore, it called for an increase in both the number of highly qualified
74
teachers in the core subjects in every classroom and the percentage of
teachers who are receiving high-quality professional development to enable
them to become highly qualified and successful. It defined a highly qualified
teacher as one who demonstrates mastery of subject-matter knowledge.
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) stemmed from the notion that student
academic achievement will improve by increasing teacher skills. Skills,
however, should not only be considered as a technical relation to a labor
process. According to Apple (1988), gaining control of one’s workplace has a
social connotation, and it implies the application of skills as technique that
translates into power. In schools, however, the standardization of curriculum
delivery has diminished the definition of skills. Apple contended that this
external specification of competencies obscures a struggle for power under the
rhetoric of technique and accountability. This contention will be further
addressed in Chapter Four, under the umbrella of professional
accountability.
On the other hand, the informal structures that shape teacher collegial
behaviors can be conceptualized in terms of relevance, reciprocity, and
inclusivity. The underlying assumption is that the informal processes
actually translate into meaningful and constructive collaborative relations
(Little, 1982). Thus, Little (1982) argued that teachers who have established
informal coalitions become interdependent in their pursuit of professional
75
competency. This assumption was highly influential in my close examination
of the informal relationships that teachers have established to determine how
relationships have impacted collaborative meetings within PLCs.
The next mechanism identified by Hanson (2003) is the normative
element, which “emphasizes values and norms about how educators should
pursue valued ends through legitimate means” (p. 281). Cooper (1988)
highlights several normative elements of an institutionalized professional
culture: a common shared knowledge base; authentic collegiality determined
by the needs of the client; and a systematic codification of knowledge (pp. 48-
49). However, the values and norms found in teaching traditionally have been
subject to the expectations of the communities that they serve. Talbert and
McLaughlin (1994) contend that teachers’ understanding of professional
development varies across schools and districts, and has been generally
bound to the culture of the institution and local teacher community. Thus,
values and norms in teaching cannot be oversimplified to the distinct
qualifiers found in other professions (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972; Etzioni,
1969; Freidson, 1986; Larson, 1977). The composition of the student body
becomes hegemonic in shaping the response from teachers and the institution
itself (Little, 1982; Ortner, 2006; Varenne & McDermott, 1998).
To further clarify the normative element, I drew from DuFour and
Eaker (1998) who state that schools organized as PLCs have the clarity of a
76
collective vision. They explain , “What separates a learning community from
an ordinary school is its collective commitment to guiding principles that
articulate what the people in the school believe and what they seek to create”
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 25). Once this process is developed, the school
culture will be shaped by teachers’ joint action, shared planning, and collegial
relationships (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Lasiter, 1996; Lieberman &
McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990; Senge, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1994). Teachers’
relationships become interdependent, and collaboration provides a space
where new patterns of thinking are nurtured and where teachers continually
acquire and articulate professional knowledge together (Senge, 1990).
The final mechanism regulating institutional change is the cognitive
element. Cognition “shapes the filter through which people view reality and
gives meaning to them as they interpret their world” (Hanson, 2003, p. 281).
In the case of establishing collaborative teams, PLCs propose the
construction and reenactment of the social reality of teachers by
institutionalizing a collaborative environment where teachers establish and
utilize individual and collective agency, articulating and acquiring technical
knowledge for the purpose of meeting the academic expectancies of all
students.
77
Summary of Conceptual Framework
The particular case used in this study focused on the interactive
patterns of two restructured teams of teachers that received professional
development and participated in some form of collaborative practices related
to PLCs. However, my interest moved beyond individual teachers and their
interactions, it focused, as suggested by McDermott & Varenne (2006), “first,
on the collective constructions all actors must deal with—whether they
personally accept, understand, or even know much about these
constructions—and, second, on what others will do, in the future, with what
the original actors did” (p. 10). The complexity found in the interactive
patterns of the specific sample I examined allowed me to arrive at concrete
universals, and to contribute to the literature pertinent to teachers as
professionals, in addition to the underlying theoretical framework of PLC as
a reform effort.
Paradoxically, the interpretative analysis of my study was less about
the success or failure of collaborative practices, but more about how
collaboration was constructed given the constraints of institutional and
professional identities. It considered how the institution directly and
indirectly influenced and was influenced by teacher actions through formal
and informal social systems of interaction.
78
My intent was to address a specific case at one school comprised of two
grade level teams of teachers departing from the premise that this small
sample would provide me with the sufficient detailed data based on the
beliefs and preferences behind teachers’ actions as they relate to each other
and redefine their professional identity (Bevir & Rhodes, 2000).
I used culture theory to capture how teachers made sense of their
practices during PLC meetings at one particular site. I also considered the
principles supporting “new ethnography” (Agar, 1996) highlighting the power
relations and professional interests of participating teachers, specifically,
those influencing the context and meaning within which teachers enacted
their role. I further considered Geertz’s (1973) definition of culture in its
broadest sense: an evolving web of significance socially constructed by social
actors. Thus, meaning varies by context, and I was interested in its
interpretation. I was careful to examine the mechanisms teachers, working
under the umbrella of PLC, have created to regulate their behavior.
Finally, to frame analysis, I applied Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Joan
E. Talbert’s conceptual framework to the analysis of school-based teacher
learning communities (2006). Their conceptualization considered different
nested spheres of influence directly affecting the professional interaction
among teams of teachers in a school site. As demonstrated in Figure 1, I was
sensitive to the behaviors that individuals manifested during their
79
collaborative meetings as well as to the interactive patterns and the technical
knowledge shared among participating teachers. However, I was also
cognizant of the contextual environment formed by the institution, the locale,
and the historical process that have permeated schools since their conception.
I went to the field and carefully considered those salient structures
that directly and/or indirectly affect the production of professional knowledge.
Within this conceptual framework , teachers were at the center of the study
influencing and being influenced by the existing structures as perceived
through internal and external mechanisms in place. My intent was to capture
and interpret those behaviors enacted by teachers in their interaction during
PLC meetings and to identify patterns and link them to the understanding of
teachers as professionals.
The narrative structure presented in the following chapters will
provide the reader with an insight into the logical progression of events that
led the school to reorganize its day institutionalizing non-instructional
minutes for the purpose of collaboration. From its conception, the aim of this
investigation was to build through empiricism an interpretation explanation
for how technical knowledge is, or is not, acquired and articulated through
the creation of PLCs.
80
Figure 1. Graphic representation of conceptual framework
The Locale: Contextualization of
the School
The School: an Institution
Teams of Teachers
Historical Aspects shaping Schools
PLC
81
Chapter 4
The Making of a Professional Learning Community
The complexity that exists in identifying schools as PLCs offers a challenge for researchers, principals, staff, parents, and other stakeholders … Schools that are operating as learning communities must foster a culture in which learning by all is valued, encouraged, and supported (Hipp et al., 2003, p. 10). This is a study about the teachers within a school and their process of
change, which has touched myriad facets of their professional lives. The
description of the locale has changed through the years. City Elementary was
a year round school that took pride in the academic accomplishments of its
homogenous population of students. The majority came from an affluent part
of the city, thus teachers did not have to deal with the challenges of second
language learners or low socioeconomic factors. The school met its yearly
target areas from federal and state accountability measures, and teachers
generally operated in a state of individualism and conservatism as defined by
Lortie (1975). In Table 4, I captured the transcription of an interview with
Mary (2T), one of the teachers, who shared her perspective of their
circumstances in 2004. The discourse feature in the statement above, “our
own thing” in line 1, or the fact that teachers felt as if their work was “behind
closed doors” (line 2), and even the idea of “doing our own thing” (lines 2-3),
reflect a traditional view of schooling.
82
Table 4
Second Grade Teacher–First Interview–Mary
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 We were all basically doing our own thing; we had similar ways of doing
2 things and we shared ideas, but we were all behind closed doors and we
3 were all doing our own thing.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Lortie’s (1975) comprehensive interpretation of the sociology of
teaching, supported by subsequent scholars, asserts that norms of privacy
have traditionally been pervasive in the teaching profession and have served
to reinforce professional isolation, which minimizes the opportunities
teachers have to produce and/or account for shared expert technical
knowledge (Little, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).
Lortie (1975) grounds his analysis of the isolated experience of teaching in
the setting of the traditional classroom, which he argues does not provide
much opportunity for interaction or interdependence. According to
McLaughlin and Marsh (1979) and corroborated by Little (1982, 1990),
teachers’ privacy norms shield them from intrusions into each other’s
professional space, making it illegitimate to enforce collegial standards. Thus,
the institutional arrangements of classrooms and the traditional role of
teachers have made collaboration and collective learning a challenging task.
83
Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) state that there is ample evidence to suggest,
“teachers do not experience their work as employing knowledge and
standards for judgment widely shared in the profession” (p. 126). Rather, in
the way school settings are organized, the role of teachers could be associated
with technical competency based on standardized operating procedures
(Devaney & Sykes, 1988).
City Elementary had a set of standardized operating procedures or, to
use the terminology of institutionalism, consistent cultural-cognitive,
normative, and regulative elements that, when associated with activities and
resources, provided a sense of stability and meaning to their daily routines
(Scott, 2001). However, the institutional transformation imposed by the
district disrupted the school’s functioning and the enduring stability of its
past. First, City Elementary underwent a change in administration; a new
principal and assistant principal were assigned to the school. Soon after that,
the school went through a boundary change as a result of new housing
developments and related overcrowding in Title I schools. These
modifications directly affected the makeup of City Elementary’s student body
and resulted in both an increase of approximately 200 English language
learners at City Elementary and a decrease in City Elementary’s Gifted and
Talented Education (GATE) program when high achieving students
consequently moved to other schools. Teachers noted that, although the total
84
number of students remained consistent, the demographic composition of the
200 students that arrived was far from that of the 200 who left. The increase
of English learners and students from poverty qualified City Elementary as a
targeted Title I school for the first time in its long history. Teachers described
this period as a “difficult one” even though, up to this point, City Elementary
had maintained mechanisms that gave meaning and stability to the social
behavior of teachers (Scott, 2001). The process required teachers to
reexamine their practices, beliefs, and value systems as they attempted to
adjust to these changes (i.e., a new administration, a Title I classification,
and, most importantly, a new student body with a large percentage of
students with challenging needs, including those classified as second
language learners and those coming from a low socio-economic status).
The complexity of all of these simultaneous forces of change affected the
teachers’ perception of the culture of the school. Hanson (2003) highlighted
the significant role teachers play in adapting, in contrast to adopting,
changes based on their perception of events, which are created and recreated
by the institutional structures in which they work. When the staff at City
Elementary encountered the boundary change, they were forced to deal with
a wide variety of challenging new issues. In the second year, the school
changed from a targeted Title I school to school-wide Title I status. A lack of
increase in student academic achievement from 2003 to 2005, as shown in
85
Table 5, was associated with teachers’ inability to meet the academic needs of
the students, which, as noted by one of the district administrators, was a “red
flag” to the school and the district.
Table 5 Longitudinal API for City Elementary School
Accountability Year Academic Performance Index
Change in student body adding English learners as a significant subgroup
2003 732 No
2004 731 Yes
2005 732 Yes
2006 739 Yes
2007 755 Yes
2008 788 Yes
2009 795 Yes
The filter through which teachers interpreted and made sense of their
world had to be altered; they had to give new meaning to their interpretation
of a reality reconstructed by institutional mechanisms that regulated a
change in the constituencies that composed their school community. Hence,
the staff, along with the principal and the district office, started a dialogue
about the particular needs of second language learners and students lacking
economic means and support at home. Riehl (2000) asserts that schools are
86
perceived as institutionalized organizations embodying a complex set of
understandings, beliefs, and values that find legitimization through their
structures, cultures, and routines.
The staff at City Elementary had established a set of values and
practices that were aligned to meet the needs of a homogenous population.
Under this conceptualization, schools are viewed as “cognitive
accomplishments and social constructions” (Riehl, 2000, p. 60) in which the
environment either elicits or inhibits the practices at the site, which is why
City Elementary’s previous instructional practices were unable to meet the
needs of English learners and students of poverty.
In Table 6, the description the principal provided of the teachers as
professionals in City Elementary back in 2004 reflects a traditional
perspective of schooling, “living in isolated kingdoms” (line 2). The discourse
featured in line 4 “working in isolation” and “learning by doing” reflects a
long-established view of teachers, one characterized by isolation in which
professional learning happens as a result of individual experience (Lortie,
1975). If sociological literature is considered, this description would not be
unique to City Elementary, but rather could be considered the traditional
state of teachers in schools across the United States. Over the last two
decades, the role of teachers as professionals has been under close scrutiny,
and although the schooling system has gone through many changes, some
87
argue that this role has been influenced very little (Elliot, 1972; Lortie, 1975;
Tyack & Cuban, 1995) (see lines 3 & 4).
Table 6
Principal’s Recollection of Events
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 … things didn’t flow. There was no connectivity between classrooms;
2 teachers were really just living in their isolated kingdoms in what they
3 were doing... But there wasn’t a lot instructionally going on for growing,
4 or learning, or doing anything… Every teacher was working in isolation,
5 learning by doing, as they attempted to meet the needs of English
6 learners.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Leading Change in a School
At the end of his first year, the new principal, with support from the
district officer started to articulate and create a new vision for City
Elementary. Concurrently, two principals from neighboring schools started
implementing PLCs at their sites, one at elementary and the other at the
secondary level. During this period, schools and districts embraced the
weighty student accountability system enacted by No Child Left Behind
(2001). Part of this educational reform effort included a rapidly accelerating
timeline for schools to meet target goals as part of its academic growth model.
88
Noteworthy is the effect that this educational measure, No Child Left
Behind (2001), has had on the management of schools and districts across the
nation. Districts, that up to a point had been academically successful, began
to experience the challenges of meeting target goal measures for all student
subgroups. The existing academic gap between demographically defined
groups of students became highly noticeable. Thus, the idea of creating
professional collaborative teams in schools as a mechanism for meeting
academic achievement goals appealed to schools and districts across the
United States.
Many educators have embraced the idea of PLCs as essential to
effective school reform (Block, 1983; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2003;
Lasiter, 1996; Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990; McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1979; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). Those who
have taken a closer look at the concept of collaborative teams point to
collective professional learning and application of learning as a fundamental
attribute of teams of teachers who are interdependent (Childs-Bowen et al.,
2000; Hipp & Huffman, 2003). This process involves educators gaining the
skills needed to move beyond their individual experiences, to attain a
collaborative learning culture in which commonality of purpose and
commitment binds them together. Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) state that,
through collaborative practices, teachers affiliate within interactive
89
networks, which allows them to engage in discourse about the technology of
teaching and to consider new conceptions of pedagogical dialogue with an
understanding of the context that will most likely facilitate serious
educational change.
The first step taken by the principal at City Elementary was to
collaborate with the two principals of neighboring schools who were further
along in the implementation process of PLCs. According to the principal, he
knew that this reform effort had been successful in schools with
demographics similar to City Elementary’s new student body (see DuFour &
Eaker, 2004). Mr. Pal (A) stated, “I considered PLC to be part of the solution
to help my school improve.” However, he further acknowledged that he was
unsure as to how to effectively implement this new reform endeavor. The
principal’s response to the idea of PLC when he first heard it was: “I had no
idea what it was.”
His initial lack of knowledge draws attention to the parallel condition
in which most novice administrators and teachers assigned to a school or a
classroom find themselves. Novice teachers generally join the workforce with
limited practice in the classroom. In fact, the socialization process into
teaching has been critically defined as a sink-or-swim approach (Lortie,
1975). Induction processes vary from state to state and although some are
more rigorous than others, traditionally they have provided both
90
administrators and teachers a rather limited professional socialization
experience (Lortie, 1975; Rosenholtz, 1989). In the United States, teachers
enter the profession with little or limited training, and oftentimes they learn
only when fully immersed in the demands of the classroom. Consequently,
many leave the profession within the first five years on the job (Wallis, 2008).
This problem is compounded with the isolation in which teachers are placed
where the egg-crate model of the traditional classroom directly affects the
professional socialization of teachers (Lortie, 1975).
From a sociological perspective, Lortie (1975) explicates how the
setting of the traditional classroom does not provide much opportunity for
interaction or interdependence. His depiction of teachers’ professional
learning characterizes it as an individual endeavor that grows in isolation.
Although Mr. Pal (A) did take the initiative to further his learning and reach
out to other principals, it was indicative of the traditional approach to
professional growth in teaching and administration. In the case of the
principal, his own initiative, rather than the structures in place, led him to
look for different options for organizing his school. The evolving state of
learning conceptualized by Lortie (1975) happens as a result of the sum of
experiences acquired through time by individuals who operate within the
context of their own classrooms or schools.
91
The Making of a PLC
Learning, as a collective enterprise, is what constitutes the heart of
reforms related to the implementation of PLCs. However, opportunities for
teacher learning take place within the context of particular organizational
structures and environments. Institutional arrangements influence, through
formal and informal rules, values, norms, and beliefs the nature of teacher
professional interactions (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, both bureaucratic
arrangements and institutional structures influence teacher organizational
behaviors, including those related to the creation of a shared technical
knowledge. It is important to understand, consequently, the impact that
institutions have had on attempts to increase the production of knowledge.
The principal noted that not all teachers were ready and/or
knowledgeable about the academic challenges associated with students from
low socio-economic groups or students who lacked English language
proficiency. This initial stage of implementation was a time of unrest for
teachers. In City Unified School District, teachers who have seniority and are
often considered experienced at their sites have priority in choosing a
different school, often choosing a school with the least challenging student
subgroups. Statements from the principal and other staff members indicated
that the teachers who left “didn’t like the students” (Correen, 4T) or “they
couldn’t make it work” (Cynda, 2T). As I considered these statements, I
92
assumed that the issue was not whether they liked the students or not, but
the complexity of the challenges these students represented was perhaps too
great. This group of teachers was either not ready or not willing to face these
challenges. This was one of the limitations I had to face in doing this
investigation; I did not interview the teachers that left the site, thus I could
not, with certainty, conclude the reasoning behind their decision making.
One of the characteristics salient to the unfolding of events at City
Elementary was the funding made available as a result of its Title I
classification. As a Title I school, City Elementary, received additional funds
to implement additional academic resources and professional development
opportunities to support student learning. This is a unique feature pertaining
to Title I schools, one that offers the possibility of employing additional
resources, resources that other schools lacked, to build the capacity of staff
members. At City Elementary, the newly formed leadership team (two of its
members are still leaders for their grade levels, Lisa and Ron), along with the
principal, considered mechanisms available to increase their technical
capacity to promote higher student academic achievement, especially for
those with specific needs. Thus, Mr. Pal (A) and other team members, Lisa
(2L), Carol (2T), Ron (4L), and Karen (4T), stated that for the following year,
the staff engaged in a conversation about PLCs, beginning with the
introduction of the definition of PLCs and related concepts.
93
Proponents of collaborative interdependent teams assume that if
teachers are organized in collaborative teams then learning could be
promoted for both teachers and students (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2010;
DuFour et al. 1998, 2004; Fullan, 2001, 2003; Lasiter, 1996; Liberman, 1988;
Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1990, 1999; McLaughlin & Marsh,
1979; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).
Thus, in 2006, City Elementary’s school principal enlisted the leadership
team to venture into the reorganization of the school as a PLC. Together,
they attended a PLC conference, Professional Learning Communities at Work
(see Solution-Tree.com) conducted by DuFour and Eaker in the summer of
2005.
The Complexity in Taking the First Steps
At the end of the first year, Lisa (2L) and Ron (4L), members of the
leadership team, stated that they agreed to obtain more information about
PLCs and joined thousands of other educators in a five-day institute,
Professional Learning Communities at Work (see Solution-Tree.com), held in
Las Vegas, Nevada, with Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (2005). At the
end of those five days, the team decided to implement PLCs at City
Elementary in the upcoming year (2005-06). However, after returning from
the PLC conference, Lisa (2L) and Ron (4L) stated that, as a leadership
group, they were ambivalent about the actual implementation process. Mr.
94
Pal (A) stated that he made an effort to include all grade level leaders in the
decision making of the school. In Table 7, it is evident that, at City
Elementary, the formalization of shared decision-making empowered
individual grade level leaders to negotiate the projected outcome and the
institutionalization of collaborative practices.
If the existing literature on collaborative practices is considered, the
ideas associated with PLC are far different than those found in the
traditional form of schooling where teachers are isolated and their
socialization minimized to the phenomenological discrete forms of interaction
as defined by Little (1990): (a) storytelling and scanning, (b) sharing, and (c)
aid and assistance. Teachers’ description of their understanding of
professional collaboration lacked the technical language to make sense of a
process intended to affect the way they related to one another. Those teachers
who have attended the PLC institute after the first group have been able to
grasp the concepts and get a more cohesive perspective about becoming a
PLC (Table 7, line 7).
In Table 7, two attributes stand out from this recalling of events. First,
the teacher repeatedly uses we statements encompassing both teachers and
administrators efforts to promote a sense of joint responsibility for student
learning (e.g., lines 11, 12, 16). Next, Lisa’s description of the decision-
making process denotes a sense of empowerment (lines, 10, 12, 15, 17).
95
Table 7
Second Grade Lead Teacher First Interview
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 I kind of feel like the whole PLC is my baby in a way, because I’ve been in
2 leadership … this is my third year, so I was part of the first group. For
3 three years we have the same team together, so we’ve done a lot at this
4 school that we’ve been able to really see blossoming and blooming. I think
5 we started not really knowing what we were doing. I’d love to go to a
6 conference now and say, “Hey, so that’s what you meant when you said
7 that.” The people who’ve been going lately get a much better perspective.
8 We were hearing all of that and we were thinking “what tha’ heck are
9 they talking about?” OK, let’s try it. So we were on that first group that
10 thought, “I don’t know what they’re saying, but let’s try it.”
11 It’s so cool to see, being in a leadership position and making decisions and
12 see its effect in the school and watch everything grow. It’s really cool. So,
13 we were on the team that made the decision to start doing PLCs. We were
14 the team that had to read all the books that go along with it, and read all
15 the studies and findings and go to the first conference and then we had to
16 bring it back to the school and talk about it and present it to our grade
17 levels, see how they like it and then to the school. It’s really neat for me to
18 see how we started because I was on that original group that decided,
19 “OK, let’s do it!”
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
96
DuFour and Eaker (1998) emphasize the term “community,”
suggesting an environment where educators, linked by common interests,
cooperate and provide support for one another in order to “achieve what they
cannot achieve alone” (p. xii). Their focus on the effects of school community
on student outcomes reflects a long-standing concern in educational research.
To better understand this, I used Bryk et al. (1993) to conceptualize the
culture of an effective school community. Their study highlighted the
distinctiveness of Catholic schools regarding their communal approach to
student academic achievement. They stress a distinctive ethos based on a
culture of engagement, commitment, and caring—involving “a social context
that significantly affects the nature of human interactions and the meanings
conveyed through those interactions” (p. 276). The ethos shared by teachers
at City Elementary before collaborative practices were put into place was one
representative of traditional settings, where interactions are limited to
individuals’ own initiative rather than the institutional norm.
In Table 8, Carol (2T) reflected back on teachers’ lack of consensus
when she stated that they did not have “pacing guides” (line 1). Furthermore,
she acknowledged the change that the school has gone through and wondered
about the kind of impact this change will on the school 10 years from now
(lines 3-4). The comments from Carol (2T) further validated this view:
97
Table 8
Second Grade Teacher Interview–Carol
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 I’ve seen the change. When I first started, there were no pacing guides,
2 none of what we have now. But for good, when I see how schools are not
3 doing so well in California, why are we doing all these things? Maybe go
4 back to where we were at, but it’s interesting to see how is affecting…
5 maybe 10 years from now.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
The complexity found in maintaining structures based on shared
decision-making and communal practices can be further exemplified by an
additional challenge City Elementary faced during the 2006-07 school year.
The school lost its Title I funding because the district shifted resources and
eliminated several schools from Title I qualification. This lack of funding
could have been detrimental to City Elementary’s attempt to institutionalize
change. However, teachers acknowledged that moving forward with a
collaborative effort was in the best interest of meeting the school’s academic
goals. Although the school was no longer considered Title I, the student body
did not change, thus, leaving the school accountable to move ahead in
meeting the needs of all students. Furthermore, now faced with higher
expectations regarding AYP, the principal noted that the collaborative effort
“had taken on a life of its own.” As a result, the leadership team adopted the
98
PLC model as the most viable option to establish the system that could foster
the professional learning needed to meet the academic needs of their
students. Both the principal and the participating teachers offered similar
accounts of the first year of implementation. Although, teachers did not have
a full grasp of what it meant to become a PLC, they decided to move forward
as a team. Mr. Pal (A) and Ron (4L), fourth grade lead teacher, noted the
following:
Table 9
Principal Interview
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 We did some really weird things that first year that people were flexible
2 with. I wouldn’t tell you that everyone bought it and jumped on board.
3 But I say the majority did. And they realized quickly, this could make my
4 life better and this really could help kids.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
As noted in Table 9, the principal had the perception that teachers
believed “this really could help our kids” (line 4), thus they decided to take on
the new challenge (Table 10, line 2). The leadership team, on the advice of
other staff members and principals at the institute in Las Vegas (2005),
launched the implementation of PLC with a focus on math instruction.
99
Table 10
Fourth Grade Teacher Lead Interview
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Once we left Vegas, we came back and for the most part it was very well
2 received as far as ‘this is it’ and where we’re going.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Table 11
Second Grade Teacher Interview–Jane
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 The first year we tried with math. I would say for any school that is
2 trying, first doing it with math. Math is so cut and dry. It’s clear. You
3 know what the kids need to learn, and whether you need to scaffold… a
4 lot easier.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
The excerpt in Table 11 represents an example of how City Elementary
created a structure that allowed teachers to implement collaborative
practices. During the first year (2004-05), teachers were introduced to the
concepts associated with PLC. During the summer of 2005, the principal and
the leadership team attended the five-day PLC conference with DuFour and
Eaker in Las Vegas. Upon their return, they started the implementation of
PLC for the 2005-06 school year with a focus on math (Table 11, line 1). The
focus on math is attributable to the fact that teachers felt comfortable
100
collaborating around its content material because of the methodical nature of
the approach to teaching and learning in math (Table 11, line 2). Although
teachers did not fully understand the notion of a PLC (see Table 7, lines 8-9),
they chose a single content area that allowed them to center their attention
and understand the process. Their common technical language in math
(Table 11, line 2) facilitated the interaction needed to create the conditions
associated with a PLC.
Stages of Implementation
Up to that point, change took place in several stages within the context
of the school. When the new principal arrived to the school, the structures in
place at City Elementary resembled traditional mechanisms of teacher
learning (see Table 4, lines 1-3). The principal stated that, initially, he sought
to acquire a better understanding of PLC as a concept and its process of
implementation. Mr. Pal (A), then, introduced PLC reform to the leadership
team that, after becoming acquainted with the terminology and basic
conceptualization, attended the institute in Las Vegas with the leading
proponents of PLC (see Table 7, lines 12-14). Simultaneously, as their
learning evolved regarding this new initiative, Mr. Pal (A) established
professional relationships with Riverside County Office of Education to assist
them with developing the capacity among team members needed to form
effective PLCs. The final stage involved administrators and teachers reaching
101
a joint decision to transform City Elementary into a PLC (see Table 10, line 2).
According to the principal and lead teachers, there were different
mechanisms that helped solidify the implementation of PLC at City
Elementary: the support from Riverside County Office of Education, a series of
professional development sessions to all staff members, and a second group of
teachers who attended the five-day PLC conference in the summer of 2006.
Mr. Pal (A) stated that he ensured the allocation of resources to
support team decisions regarding the course of action. He allocated specific
non-instructional time for teachers to meet, but that was the extent of his
involvement. When teachers met, the principal made a commitment not to
intervene or lead the direction of those meetings. The principal stated that if
the expectation was to collaborate and teachers had been provided with the
tools regarding how to select topics of collaboration, then teachers themselves
needed to decide what to discuss and how to maximize their time together. At
the same time, members of the leadership team received training on how to
lead those conversations. The Riverside County Office of Education provided
further training in how to set norms together and build consensus. All the
time allocated for professional development for that school year was spent in
conversations about PLCs.
Mr. Pal’s decision to not interfere with teachers’ collaboration was
driven by the assumption that teachers participating in collaborative
102
practices work together in teams and engage in collective inquiry as a
catalyst for action (DuFour et al., 2004). Thus, allowing this process to bring
about learning about students and how to meet their needs is one of the goals
of PLC. However, this approach fails to acknowledge the need to
systematically provide the means by which learning occurs. Perhaps this is
the reason the PLC literature minimizes the complexity of the learning
process and defines it in terms of specific outcomes related to student
academic achievement. A PLC’s target goal is to help teachers define what
students need to learn, the process to assess student learning, the
intervention needed if students fail to master the concept, and, finally, the
enrichment activities for those students that have mastered it (DuFour et al.,
2004). In doing this, the proposed student learning is directly correlated to
specific outcomes based on academic performance and mastery of specific
standards, and it poses the challenge of providing interventions to those
students who fail to achieve the learning objective. It could be argued that
the mere discussion of student academic achievement does not change the
isolation of teachers and privatization of practices (Lortie, 1975); however,
this study demonstrates how the PLC movement becomes, in specific
contexts, the precursor to altering the manner in which teachers articulate
and acquire technical knowledge by fostering meaningful dialogue to
institutionalize learning within the profession.
103
Table 12 provides evidence of the existing perception held by teachers
at the time (2005). Becky (2T) referred to the leadership team as if “they”
(line 1) had made the choice and added more things to do, as part of a process
that seemed to be “super overwhelming” (line 2).
Table 12
Second Grade Teacher First Interview – Becky
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 When they (the leadership team) brought back the information, I found it
2 to be super overwhelming, and basically, what we were already doing but
3 more formal. So, now we had to write things out, have norms and
4 meetings and minutes. I just thought… ugh!
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
It was evident that the staff ventured into an unknown territory and
agreed to carry out the PLC reform as articulated by their leaders (leadership
team). However, as they increased their technical competence regarding the
components aligned to PLCs, they seemed more confident in defining what it
meant to be a PLC. Becky stated that their meetings “have norms” (line 3)
and that they now “write things out” and have “minutes” (lines 3-4). This
statement validates the notion of an increasing codification of the knowledge
generated during PLC, formalizing teacher learning. In their recollection of
the implementation process, the participants often recalled feeling confused
by the process and resistant to change:
104
Table 13
Second Grade Teacher Interview–Cynda
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 I love the ability to collaborate, discuss, and share ideas because we tend
2 to be pretty isolated when we’re teaching in our own little world, and we
3 do things in our own way, and when you sit down with four, five, or six
4 other colleagues and they go, “Oh, I’ve done it this way”, it’s very
5 refreshing.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
During the interviews and participant observations, teachers’ used
descriptive words that evidence a high degree of interconnectivity between
participating members, as noted by Phil (4T), “these are our kids, not just my
kids.” The discourse features identified in Cynda’s summarization of PLC
(Table 13) indicate what they do now: “collaborate, discuss, share ideas” (line
1), as opposed to what they used to do before, “isolated”, “our own little
world”, “our own way” (line 3). We statements were common when
interviewees expressed their ideas about PLC; team decisions have become
the norm; trust in each other as colleagues is perceived as “very refreshing”
(lines 4-5); collective agreements sustained; and in the following chapter, it
will be noted how accountability for one’s own students and those of everyone
else’s is continually pursued.
105
Construction of the Schedule
According to the literature on PLC implementation, one of the first
changes that administrators and teachers must address in their attempt to
establish a PLC on their campuses is the construction of a schedule that
allocates the necessary non-instructional time for teachers to collaborate.
Unless the institution creates the formal conditions for teachers to meet on a
regular basis, the informality of teacher relationships would only foster the
traditional approach to schooling in which teacher learning is an individual
endeavor (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2010; DuFour et al., 2004; Fullan, 2001;
Liberman, 1988; Little, 1990, 1999; Rosenholtz, 1989). However, the effort to
build into the school schedule non-instructional time for teacher collaboration
often entails negotiation between the teachers’ union and the district. This
process can be one of the most difficult tasks in the initial stages of PLC
reform initiatives. Contractual time and its correlation to the school day have
traditionally been based on a system in which boundedness to one’s own
classroom and personal autonomy is the norm (Little, 1999; Lortie, 1975).
Thus, changing this structure is not an inconsequential institutional feat;
rather, it is a form of change that is at the core of the regulative factors of the
institution, proposing changes that would eventually affect the normative
behaviors and cognitive understandings of staff members (Rowan, 1990).
106
The principal, in statements validated by his teachers and
administrators at the district office, stated that they were faced with the
dilemma of scheduling non-instructional minutes when they attempted to
reorganize their school campus to address teacher and student learning. As a
leadership team, however, their approach was ultimately dictated by the
availability of financial resources to support non-instructional time for
collaborative practices. When they first started (2005-06), their primary
source of funding came from their qualification as a Title I school, which
made possible the hiring of support staff in the first year of implementation
(2005-06), this staff member was rotated through the grade levels to provide
student supervision and allow teachers to be released from their classrooms
for the purpose of collaboration and planning.
When the school lost its qualifying status as a Title I school,
administrators had to be more creative in finding other funding sources to
support the implementation of PLC. Mr. Pal (A) stated that in subsequent
years “a more sophisticated approach” had to be implemented. During the
next two school years, 2007-09, the principal made use of After School
Education Support (ASES) funds to continue providing time for collaboration.
Led by the principal, several consultants were hired to support the after
school program. Part of their contract included some hours during the school
day, which allowed them to arrive early on campus, rotate through the
107
different grade levels, and work with the students in 50 minute blocks of time
while teachers were released for the purpose of collaboration. Mr. Pal (A)
stated that all of the changes in the schedule and the allocation of support
staff to release teachers did not require much negotiation with either the
district or the teachers’ union. As long as the school secured an adequate
funding source, Mr. Pal (A) stated, “the continuity of the structure was
assured.”
Bureaucratic Support and Its Effect on Collaboration
As the administrators and teachers at City Elementary struggled to
secure funding to maintain a school schedule for the purpose of teacher
collaboration, district-level discussions emerged to ensure institutional
support for such efforts. During the course of the 2008-09 school year, City
Unified School District convened a panel composed of teachers, principals,
and district office administrators to consider the allocation of a specific time
on a weekly basis for the purpose of teacher collaboration. The assistant
superintendent of instructional services (DA) stated that much evidence
exists that supports the idea of collaboration as a necessary precondition to
meeting the academic needs of students. Moreover, the superintendent (DA)
supported this view and stated that providing time for teachers to collaborate
as a way to increase their expertise is not a new concept in education. He had
experienced successful relationships with collaborative teams as a teacher
108
and later as an administrator in the 1970s and 1980s. However, both the
superintendent and assistant superintendent agreed that the process of
institutionalizing district-wide teacher collaboration or PLCs was not going to
be accepted in anything close to a straightforward manner.
The superintendent asserted that in education, schools are faced with
an overwhelming number of labels placed on well-intended educational
practices that often hinder the intended benefits. He made this statement in
reference to the idea behind PLCs. He further affirmed that district-wide,
several schools had already started implementing some form of teacher
collaboration following the PLC model. However, he stated that some of the
principals wanted to apply the proposed model not necessarily because they
understood the concept, but because they felt the need to stay current with
emerging trends in educational reform. With this in mind, the
superintendent acknowledged that the district had to lead this effort by
providing the structures, guidelines, and processes to support teacher
collaboration, so that the entanglement of labels could be avoided.
To understand the undertaking of City Unified School District, Meyer
and Rowan (1977) discuss the element of the process of institutionalization in
which “organizations are driven to incorporate the practices and procedures
defined by prevailing rationalized concepts of organizational work and
institutionalized in society” (p. 340). Thus, administrators at the district level
109
started a process designed to regulate the normative obligation and activities
of teachers. Coordinating the structures needed to create and sustain the
organizational parameters critical to teacher collaboration became an
instrumental goal for the district’s administrative team, as stated by the
assistant superintendent. However, the adoption of a specific PLC structure
could have hindered any effort from the district regarding the formalization
of teacher collaboration.
The panel in charge deliberately stayed away from labeling the
district’s attempt to formalize the process as PLC. Even though the district’s
attempt to support teacher collaboration was grounded in the approach
marketed by DuFour and Eaker (1998), the panel identified their endeavor as
professional teacher time (PTT). The very intentional naming of this
normative process was key to its survival. During negotiations, teachers were
more agreeable to accept the institutionalization of professional time for
teachers to collaborate than instituting PLC—the marketed approach to
teacher collaboration which some perceived it as a top-down mandate from
the district. The assistant superintendent stated that his purpose in
promoting the idea of PTT was to first institutionalize the time needed for
teachers to collaborate. Then, he stated, the evolving state of this reform
would eventually result in higher student academic gains and an increase of
professional expertise. He defined this process as “organic” in nature, stating
110
that it was intended to gradually evolve without the administration making
demands or setting agendas. Burns and Stalker (1961) define an educational
process as organic when complex school organizational problems are solved
by frequent engagement of teachers in search of solutions (as cited in Rowan,
1990, p. 357). They argue that network structures replace hierarchical
structures of management providing the means by which collegial patterns of
interaction become the catalyst for instructional and academic improvement.
Rowan (1990) argues that seeking to develop innovative working
arrangements to support teacher learning, collaboration, and shared
leadership “will unleash the energy and the expertise of committed teachers
and thereby lead to improved student learning” (p. 354).
The negotiation of terms and regulatory language regarding PTT took
most of the 2008-09 school year. Members of the panel had to discuss in
detail the advantages and disadvantages associated with PTT with board
members; they presented the proposal to teachers and provided forums for
parents and community members to discuss proposed schedule changes The
proposed reform was so compelling that the majority of stakeholders agreed
to institutionalize weekly non-instructional time, so that teachers would have
one hour either before or after school to meet with their teams. The
agreement also delineated the boundaries of administrative input
reemphasizing the need to trust the process itself as a conduit for
111
professional learning. Finally, administration, at the district level,
acknowledged that school sites were at different stages in their attempt to
implement reform efforts. Thus, the PTT panel purposely circumvented
qualifiers regarding the use of time in schools. The fact that the City Unified
School District, one of the ten largest districts in California, institutionalized
collaboration within their regular schedule is a remarkable accomplishment
(Fullan, 2001, 2003). The complexity found in a district of more than 50,000
students could have been detrimental to the structuring of time for
professional collaboration. Nevertheless, it was carefully planned and
deliberately executed to ensure a prompt resolution. The fact that it was
accomplished with minimal resistance testifies to the working conditions and
amiable relationships between the school district and the teachers’
association. This decision making process could be the subject of further
studies.
Use of Professional Time
The schedule at City Elementary included a specific time for both of
the participating grade levels to meet on a weekly basis (see Table 14). The
schedule represented in Table 14 shows the allocation of non-instructional
minutes for the purpose of collaboration. Each grade level had one hour built
into its weekly schedule in which consultants took all students from a
particular grade level for outside activities.
112
Table 14
PLC Schedule for Second and Fourth Grades
Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
8:30 – 10:20 School Activities and Other Grade Levels Collaboration Time
10:20 – 11:20 Fourth Grade
11:20 – 1:20 School Activities and Other Grade Levels Collaboration Time
1:20 – 2:30 Second Grade
The location of the meeting for both grade levels was in one of the
participating teacher’s classroom. The arrangement of the furniture varied
for both grade levels. In second grade, teachers gathered around a bean-
shaped table which allowed them to face each other in a semicircular shape.
The teacher whose classroom hosted the meeting sat behind the table, facing
all participants. As a participant observant, I sat behind most participants at
a student’s desk, so that my presence would not interfere with their
interaction. In second grade, the seating arrangement allowed all
participants to interact with one another and to work with papers or other
materials in a space common to all. In fourth grade, on the other hand, the
seating arrangement was less formal. Participating teachers walked into the
classroom and found a place to sit at student desks somewhere near one
113
another. The teacher who hosted the meeting changed his location from time
to time, in some instances he sat at a student’s desk, while other times he sat
at his own desk. His seating fluctuated based on the needs of the group.
Every time he took notes or made changes to the schedule, he sat at his desk
and took notes on his computer. In a few instances he used the LCD projector
to show his computer screen on the board for everyone else to see.
During my observations, participating teams at City Elementary had a
variety of approaches regarding the use of time. Teachers in both grade levels
focused on a range of topics that included student learning, schedules,
instructional materials, formative and summative assessments, teaching
practices, and supportive relationships. Agendas were not necessarily the
norm. Although the PLC literature stressed the importance of regulating the
meetings by maintaining and following an agenda (DuFour et al., 2004),
teams tended to prioritize their agenda items based on what seemed most
pressing at the time. For example, in repeated occasions during my
observations, an outside consultant new to the team interrupted the flow of
collaborative discussion with specific instructions from the administration
regarding student interventions. In each situation, interruptions deviated the
focus of the dialogue to address the intervention offered. Team members
discussed changes in schedule, the instructional focus for the intervention,
and who the participating students would be. Furthermore, they expressed
114
their frustration with this new form of intervention proposed by the
administration. The allocation of time to discuss new interventions was one
of the first issues the group had to address; teachers found that the
administration had failed to consider their existing structure and whether it
was an appropriate intervention time for their grade level. Thus, they found
themselves diverging from their discussion items to engage in a conversation
about how to make the intervention work. Their professional dialogue was,
thus, disrupted by their need to comply with a directive given by the
administration.
The vignette in Table 15 shows how teachers responded to an
interruption. Correen (4T) stated, “not an issue,” “Did we know?” (line 1), “it
had to get done” (line 7), and Karen (4T) agreed to the task being
“unexpected” (line 14). If schools are meant to drive professional
conversations, they must create the conditions to foster this kind of dialogue
without the micromanagement of teachers’ time (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughling, 1999; Little, 1999). The fact that Ron attempted to rationalize
the interruption by highlighting the need for “consistency” (lines 9-10) as if it
happened “everywhere” (line 9), did not justify the paradoxical approach of
administration to foster professional dialogue while at the same time
interrupting the flow of teachers’ dialogue with administrative tasks.
115
Table 15
Response to Interruption in Fourth Grade
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Correen: But, not an issue. Did we know she was coming in to our PLC
2 time today? That just wasted like a half-an-hour of our PLC meeting.
3 Ron: It was like 10 minutes.
4 Correen: That was not 10 minutes.
5 Phil: We have 25 minutes left. Let’s go.
6 Ron: I much rather her coming in right now and deal with it, than…
7 Correen: I know that it had to get done, but I don’t think it needed to
8 have…
9 Ron: The same argument is going to happen everywhere, if we’re gonna be
10 consistent, we got to be consistent.
11 Correen: I know, I agree with what she was saying, but…
12 Phil: I think we need to re-implement our duties, like time keeper and so
13 on…
14 Karen: That was unexpected though…
15 Phil: I know… but if we have our jobs, we stick to our jobs.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
This issue is inconsistent with the literature found in PLCs. Little
(1990) identifies the level of joint responsibility held by teachers as
particularly influential in the production of technical knowledge. Cooper
116
(1988) supports this idea, highlighting the need for administrative support in
the development of a collegial professional teaching culture. Thus,
interruptions like the one summarized in Table 15, perhaps, are a norm in
the relationship between school administrators and classroom teachers that
must be reevaluated before PLCs can ever be fully implemented and effective.
After the interaction highlighted in Table 15, the team realized that their
collaboration digressed from what they intended to discuss. However, given
the limited time of their schedule, they acknowledged that the task at hand
was relevant enough to address during their limited time together. Thus,
they discussed the scheduled times and the skills that needed to be taught.
Soon after this, the administrator (assistant principal) walked in to the room
to address questions the group had regarding the schedule. The teachers
voiced their frustration with the times allocated for their grade level and the
team goals during intervention. This discussion took about 20 minutes as
they considered different options and attempted to negotiate a viable
solution. The group discussed who did what, when, and the specific students
serviced in each intervention group. The discussion further solidified the
tension between traditional bureaucratic structures of authority in school
organizations and the professional collaboration of classroom teachers.
As noted in Table 15, the problem the group encountered was beyond
their control. It was part of an institutional arrangement embedded in a
117
system developed for a different purpose. “The basic grammar of schooling,
like the shape of classrooms, has remained remarkably stable over the
decades” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 85). The organization of the school evolved
from a single-room classroom to the complex institutions with minimal
changes to the self-contained classrooms. Tyack and Cuban (1995) assert that
this process provided the “organizational framework that shapes how
teachers do their work” (p. 86). Most importantly, they stress the fact that
over the years, innovators have tried to break the mold of isolation and
encourage teachers to work in teams (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) with minimal
success. In the excerpt in Table 15, the participating teachers had to adjust
their collaboration agenda to fit the demands of the organization and found
themselves dealing with a decision-making process in an effort to negotiate
control of their routines. Although frustrated and ambivalent about the task
at hand, they found a way to make it part of the discussion. All participating
teachers discussed the options available given the existing constraints, their
time was invested in making their interest, and that of their students, work
for the common good of the school. Little time was spent analyzing best
practices or discussing standards-based instruction. Rather, the triviality of
the schedule took most of their collaboration time, making this task the
center of their discussion. Teachers seemed to be restricted in their ability to
118
make decisions regarding their agenda items, and they had to address the
task at hand before they could move on.
Unexpected interruptions were not uncommon during my observations.
On repeated occasions, I witnessed teachers struggle to balance the demands
of a last minute task with the continuation of their scheduled agendas.
However, although a disruption to the flow of events could have hindered the
expected outcomes, collaboration seemed to continue. Furthermore, the
transactions between team members happened with a sense of
egalitarianism, in spite of seniority or experience, evidencing an implicit
desire to make the system work.
The Establishing of Time Management
During the 2008-09 school year, City Elementary allocated 30 minutes
of instruction for English language (EL) learners that required teachers to
move groups of students based on their language proficiency levels. This
intervention time also affected English only (EO) students who received some
form of instruction during this time. In Table 16, the fourth grade team
discussed the proposed rotations during English language development
(ELD). While discussing the schedule, one of the team members was assigned
the duty of timekeeper to ensure that the group stayed focused during their
collaborative process.
119
Table 16
Fourth Grade Planning Interaction
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Phil: So, what happens, Karen, during ELD time, you will rotate weeks, so
2 one week with Ron and the next week with Correen.
3 Karen: So our EO session will take place from 1:30–2:00 PM.
4 Correen: Let’s get back on PLC track.
5 Ron: Math schedule is good. ELD schedule is good.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
It is noticeable in Table 16 that teachers acknowledged the primacy of
time by having someone keep track of the items in the agenda (line 4).
However, this was not necessarily the norm. For the fourth grade team, the
timekeeper was instituted after the team had gone through other disruptions
(see Table 15). Norms varied from team to team. Some teams assigned a
member to maintain the flow of activities, while other teams seemed to
expect team members to uphold implicit expectations. One of the teams
deviated so much from the norms they had established at the beginning of
the school year that one of the members had to call everyone’s attention at
the end of a meeting and ask them to go back to basics—preserving the
protocol once agreed upon so that activities and tasks could be accomplished
in the allocated time. This was not unique to one team. The other team
observed had a similar situation in which someone acknowledged the need to
120
go back to basics and maintain the agreements of the group because
reviewing the norms regularly or prior to each meeting did not generally
occur (see Table 15: lines 12 and 15).
One of the salient features in PLC meetings was the time allocated at
the beginning of each meeting to “check-in” with each other, a brief debriefing
on what had taken place in teachers’ classrooms, the school, or individual
events of importance to all members. This allocation of time played a
significant role in establishing the ground rules, it allowed teachers to
reinforce and foster the relationships they had established with each other,
and it also provided them with an opportunity to detach themselves from
their daily routines and find in their colleagues a listening ear. This process
reinforced the trust level in the team, allowing personal sharing in a safe
environment. The time varied in length at the beginning of each meeting
from about five to seven minutes before they begun discussing any agenda
items. Serving as a frame of reference, PLC provided the social context in
which meaning-making and relationships were fostered. The relationships
among the teachers observed at City Elementary showed signs of friendship,
an easy going camaraderie that made the interaction flow smoothly.
Occasionally, the lead teachers reminded the group that it must comply with
the school requirements that had been discussed during their leadership
team meeting, thus prompting the team to return to the task at hand.
121
City Elementary allocated time within the schedule for teachers to
meet, not based on the professional needs of the team, but on the availability
of resources. It was not an easy task, but rather a craft of complexity in which
the principal, based on the availability of funds and resources, had to create
the structure for the teachers to meet with their grade level team members.
Once an agreement was reached on the frequency and length of collaborative
meetings, then, the next factor that was determined jointly by the principal
and leadership team was the area of focus, which they accomplished because
external demands from accountability measures were not in place at the
time.
This could be a source of disagreement and contention where
professional arrangements between administrators and teachers could vary
widely based on the school’s accountability goals. If the school has met its
AYP goals, there seems to be less pressure to define the specificities of
collaboration. However, if the school is in PI status because of its inability to
show sufficient academic growth, then the imposed federal pressure becomes
the regulator of the internal structure and socialization arrangements taking
place in the school. Although this study will not consider PLCs within the
context of PI status, I will discuss in more detail the role of accountability
within the framework of PLC. Further research will be needed to compare
the collaborative practices found in schools based on their academic
122
achievement. I will, however, provide an insight into the use of time for a
school currently meeting its target objectives.
Time can be one of the greatest constraints or enablers in making
PLCs function in schools, and, regardless of its institutionalization, it must
be stated that 30 to 60 minutes is not sufficient for the intended outcomes
regarding student learning. Teacher collaborative practices at City
Elementary, although structured, only affected a fraction of the instructional
day. To make a difference that would substantially affect the entire
instructional day, more time needs to be allocated for teachers to engender a
higher degree of collaborative practice and interaction. This is one of the
issues districts have to negotiate with teacher unions, for it is the limiting
provisions found in contractual agreements negotiated by the union and the
district that, ironically, diminish the professional status and learning they
advocate. Little (1999) argues that schools should creatively and consistently
create blocks of non-instructional time to foster teacher learning by “enabling
teachers to examine ideas and practices and to contribute to one another’s
teaching success” (p. 245) and, therefore, satisfying public demands for
accountability.
The next two chapters will develop two specific findings related to City
Elementary’s experience with PLCs. Chapter 5 will explore the nature of the
professional learning that has evolved through the implementation of PLC.
123
In it I will explicate the nature of the knowledge produced in a specific locale
and how this knowledge indirectly affects teacher professional accountability
and instructional practices. Furthermore, I will examine the impact PLC has
on student academic achievement. In Chapter 6 I will explore the primacy of
the affective component in the effective implementation of PLC reform at
City Elementary.
124
Chapter 5
Conceptualization of Knowledge and Accountability in PLCs
Perhaps one of the most powerful and least costly occasions of teacher learning is the systematic, sustained study of student work, coupled with individual and collective efforts to figure out how that work results from the practices and choices of teaching (Little, 1990, p. 235).
When considering the conceptualization of professional knowledge,
PLCs propose a change from teachers’ isolated instruction controlling an
arcane body of substantive or technical knowledge (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972;
Etzioni, 1969; Freidson, 1986; Larson, 1977) to a team of professionals whose
shared technical language and common practices become the norm of the
group. The reference to consistency is significant in setting the foundation for
a common technical culture. The privacy norms existing in traditional
approaches to schooling do not allow teachers to interact with one another,
and they actually from subtract opportunities for teacher learning. DuFour et
al. (2004) stated, “the teams of a PLC are organized to engage in collective
inquiry into both best practice and the current reality regarding their
students’ existing levels of achievement” (p. 4). What the literature defines is
a process by which teachers de-privatize their practice and collectively arrive
at conclusions that affect their instructional practices, and, consequently,
student learning.
125
One of the interactions of City Elementary’s second grade teachers
that I captured during my field work exemplified this process (see Table 17).
The group discussed instructional plans for the upcoming school year that
included possible ways to provide instruction in writing and ways to assess
what students know and how that knowledge is related to testing
expectations (CST).
In Table 17, teachers discussed their vision for the next school-year.
They had a sense of empowerment that allowed them to define the
parameters of curriculum organization and delivery methods. They presented
ideas and exchanged possibilities based on their shared knowledge. Then,
they briefly discussed writing expectations, rubrics, and options for
curriculum focus. The dialogue, although unstructured, flowed back and forth
smoothly with members who seemed to be willing to learn from each other.
Some of the features reflected in the participants’ speech patterns
evidence collegiality and team work as noted in line 1 when Mary stated, “we
need to decide how we’re planning,” the inclusivity of the reference is further
reinforced in line 2 when she stated “our kids.” Jane made an attempt to
summarize the challenge regarding how to teach writing stating, “that’s how
we teach our kids” (line 5). The continuous use of “we,” “our kids” (e.g., lines
1, 2, 5, and 6) is indicative of team work that is engaged in collective inquiry
(DuFour et al., 2004).
126
Table 17
Second Grade Planning Interaction
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Mary: For next year I think we need to decide how we’re planning to teach
2 writing, because CSTs are not based on Step Up to Writing and our kids
3 are so formatted in that structure of writing…
4 Cynda: But Step Up to Writing should not be on the CSTs.
5 Jane: But that’s how we teach our kids. That’s what I’m saying, when we
6 gear away from that… that’s why we have to exposed them to a greater
7 variety of writing throughout the year.
8 Mary: If I would have my kids writing like this, 10 years ago, I would
9 have been…
10 Jane: I understand, I know what you’re saying, but…
11 Becky: The question that comes down to is: Are we teaching our kids to
12 the test or providing the skills they need to write? I think the writing they
13 produce is amazing.
14 Mary: I’m just saying it makes it really hard for them.
15 Becky: Is the purpose of the writing to help them understand setting,
16 character, and sequence of events? Because, I think, it might be more
17 effective to give them the actual stories and have them find those because
18 that’s kind of more what they’re gonna be assessed on, versus writing
19 whole thing, which is a big project…
20 Mary: That’s perfect for leveled groups because the kiddos who are
127
21 struggling with it, yes give them this and have them find the characters
22 in there… but the higher groups…
23 Becky: So the assessment can’t be an actual written product, because then
24 we’re actually assessing their ability to write not find and understand
25 what those things are.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
The key markers of discourse associated with their community
approach likewise evidenced the shared technical knowledge participating
teachers had about “CSTs” and “Step Up to Writing” (lines 2 & 4). In addition
to their shared knowledge about tests (CSTs) and instructional programs
(Step Up to Writing), there was another key marker of their discourse that
evidenced a degree of accountability. The question posed by Becky: “Are we
teaching our kids to the test or providing the skills they need to write?” (lines
11-12), suggests that, although they are all aware of the expectations from
standards, their dialogue informs their practices in light of these
expectations. Action, then, was negotiated as an informal process of
accountability where the interrelatedness of teachers became the foundation
for meeting the shared goal of continual improvement in student academic
achievement (DuFour et al., 2004).
Their questioning reflected an in-depth understanding of writing as a
process and how that compared to their ability to assess students’ literary
analysis skills (Table 17: lines 15-19). This was a discussion about the kind of
128
questions that could be taught during writing or writing under the umbrella
of Step Up to Writing. The teachers seemed to realize that if students were
asked to identify setting, character, et cetera on the test (lines 15-16), then,
that was how they should teach it. When teachers referred to the CSTs (e.g.,
lines 2 and 4), their discussion implied a tacit knowledge of the expectations
embedded in the test and whether their instructional practices provided
students with the skills needed to achieve proficiency. They also seemed to be
aware of the social and academic needs of their particular students. For this
reason, they considered moving away from the established norm (Step Up to
Writing) and instead contemplated the best method to teach an assessed skill
on the CST. Moreover, they highlighted the existing divide between their
method of assessing students and the expectations found in the CSTs (lines
23-25). This was not an easy task. It was one that required teachers to make
their knowledge applicable to their circumstances and come to agreements
that perhaps were not widely accepted, yet sensitive of their role within the
context of the group and the community they represent.
This kind of interaction was not unique to this team. Additional
observations and interviews validated the process by which shared technical
language was generated and allowed teachers to exchange information about
specific instructional elements or particular subgroups of students. This is
129
further exemplified in Table 18, where the fourth grade team members
became engaged in a discussion about writing.
The discussion took place in the last month of instruction, when the
team talked about the advantages and disadvantages of focusing on
persuasive writing in preparation for the next grade level, even though they
acknowledged that persuasive writing was not a fourth grade standard. They
had questions and concerns about whether or not to introduce an upper grade
standard with a fourth grade skills approach.
Notably, in Table 18 the technical language used by Ron (4L)
evidences a trenchant understanding of writing content standards (lines 5-6).
The reference to the groups that had not mastered the different genres of
literature denoted a shared knowledge about all students (line 3).
Furthermore, Correen (4T) made a statement regarding Phil’s (4T) students
and her knowledge of their readiness for “persuasive” (lines 8-9).
In order to have this kind of quality dialogue within a professional
team, teachers must share a common language that, in both situations, Table
17 and Table 18, relates to a body of shared substantive and technical
knowledge (Abbott, 1988; Elliot, 1972; Freidson, 1986; Larson, 1977; Lortie,
1975).
130
Table 18
Fourth Grade Planning Interaction
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Correen: The group I have is ready for persuasive. They’ll focus on the
2 genre.
3 Ron: How do we filter out?
4 Karen: I still think we can level it to all five groups.
5 Ron: We still have groups that have not mastered essay, still haven’t
6 mastered response to lit, and we are gonna introduce persuasive?
7 Correen: I think we’re gonna have those students who regardless of the
8 genre, they still don’t have the writing conventions. I think Phil has a
9 group that’s ready to grasp the concept.
10 Phil: So, how are we gonna measure that?
11 Correen: I think we need to give them a basic writing assessment.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
This collegial approach allowed teachers to participate in dialectic
practices that were indicative of specialization and formal training of content
and curricular standards, a qualifier of the profession. If teachers lacked the
shared technical language needed to participate, they would not have
understood the explicit and implicit communication patterns connected to
individual and collective accountability.
131
Shared Knowledge
City Elementary found itself coping with a changing population of
students who posed new challenges regarding student learning and
acculturation. The particularities of teachers’ interactional patterns acquired
a technicality that may be understood only within their particular context,
validating the argument that redefines teacher learning as contextual, giving
primacy to the locale in which it occurs. For example, the dialogue in Table
19 shows the interaction of one of the teams, referring to the expectations in
writing based on two different genres. The vignette is from the second grade
team, as they looked at their grade level expectations. Based on this
information, they discussed different writing styles and addressed some of
the confusion students are confronted with when testing. The discussion
looked at the specific academic needs of students and, later, it addressed
some of the ways in which teachers could meet those needs. The exchange of
information related to writing happened as a result of the knowledge
teachers had about content standards pertinent to the grade level (e.g., lines
5-7). Collaboration in the team described above showed a definite specificity
about academic challenges that otherwise would have to be confronted within
the boundaries of one’s own classroom.
132
Table 19
Second Grade Literary Genre Discussion
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Cynda: Personal narrative is sort of expository writing…
2 Mary: The problem has to be there for it, and that’s the lesson for what’s
3 the difference between expository and narrative. A narrative has to have
4 characters that have a problem or a need, something that’s needed… so to
5 say… and that’s the part they miss and then it goes into expository. But if
6 you prompt them with “tell about a problem you had and how you solved
7 it” sets them up in the right direction.
8 Carol: Oh yea, and I also remember in one of the trainings they say if you
9 give them the prompt, “Once upon a time” they get away from the topic
10 sentence.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Furthermore, teachers supported one another with references
pertaining to the knowledge they acquired individually (lines 8-9) and then
articulated this knowledge for the benefit of the team.
Parent Conferences
During my observations, teachers were part of a school-wide effort that
provided them the opportunity, through collaborate practices, to learn about
each other and about their own students. The dialogical practices established
through PLC were symbiotic in nature, where teachers developed an
133
interdependent and mutually beneficial relationship that led them to
promote agreements based on a common technical culture. For instance, in
one of the vignettes highlighted in Table 20, teachers discussed how they, as
a grade level, decided to conduct parent-teacher conferences.
Table 20
Grade Level Approach to Parent Conferences
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Cynda: Because if we’re working all together and these are all of our kids,
2 then the parents need to see all of the teachers, and then hear the
3 material presented so it’s consistent among all the teachers too.
4 Liz: So, this is what we expect for homework. This is how we expect
5 behavior. You know, this is as a whole team, no matter what classroom
6 they go into, it’s gonna be consistent.
7 Cynda: Our next step is to talk about our grading so that we could be
8 consistent even in that.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
Members of the team agreed to meet with all parents together in one
room rather than individually, and to provide a consistent explanation about
the role of teachers within the context of the team. The traditional
expectations parents have for parent-teacher conferences is a one-to-one
conference with a classroom teacher. The team approach, however, involved a
team of professionals working together, discussing individual student
134
academic achievement, and relying on each other’s strengths to benefit all
students.
The key markers of the discourse in Table 20 were indicative of the
mutual agreements the team achieved: “we’re working all together,” “all of
our kids” (line 1), “whole team, no matter what classroom” (line 5). They
expressed a joint effort in presenting consistent expectations to all parents
(lines 4-6). Once again, teachers spoke of: “we,” “our,” “all” (e.g., lines 1 & 7),
stating that their approach was one of a unified front-showing,
connectedness, a conscious vision and purpose, and joint responsibility
(Huffman, 2001).
Collaborative Meetings for the Purpose of Intervention
The principal at City Elementary made a commitment not to intervene
or to regulate the tasks to be accomplished during the collaborative meetings.
Hence, the observed teams systematically developed informal mechanisms
that gradually became the driving force behind PLC implementation. One of
the indicators of the technical language teachers now share was the
sophistication of their discourse patterns. The collaborative transactions
among teachers are coded with references to accountability and different
forms of intervention. The vignette in Table 21 is indicative of the dialogue I
recorded during collaborative meetings.
135
The empowerment of teachers at City Elementary was evidenced by
the choices they made about instructional matters. Teachers negotiated the
terms of intervention and how their common formative assessments (CFAs)
(Table 21: line 2) would help them focus their instruction to achieve their
shared objectives. They also discussed essential standards, those that are
grade-level specific and those that must be mastered before moving to the
next grade level.
Table 21
Second Grade Level Approach to Intervention
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Lisa: On the 26th, we’ll start leveling again.
2 Jane: I would like to see some CFAs made, even if it is two groups made.
3 Mary: So we still remember what we need to do?
4 Liz: Yes, however, why couldn’t we do a narrative Step-Up-to-Writing
5 with our kids?
6 Lisa: I like that a lot.
7 Liz: Maybe when we come back we can do a narrative Step-Up lesson. We
8 can assess Friday.
9 Mary: We can still do an assessment with just the story prompt.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Teachers briefly talked about expectations and rubrics validating each
other suggestions. Furthermore, they asked each other clarifying questions
136
concerning what to do and how to do it. Their questioning reflected an in
depth understanding of content (line 4); however, because of the subjectivity
of language arts, they encountered challenges such as deciding what forms of
assessments would most accurately provide the best information to guide
their instruction.
This process seemed to directly affect the way teachers acquired and
articulated their learning within the framework of intervention, and this
learning proliferated to influence teachers’ daily instructional practices, as
noted in the interaction about their students’ mastering of skills and the
application of specific instructional strategies.
It could be argued, however, that the shared technical knowledge is not
necessarily an indicator of a shared technical approach to instruction. The
fact that teachers are confined to the boundaries of their own classrooms adds
validity to the argument regarding the privatization of practices. However,
this investigation demonstrated that the increasing technical knowledge of
teachers affected the culture at City Elementary. “In dealing with the world,
human beings actively change certain parts of it, especially by producing
cultural entities, such as technical and meaning systems” (Karpatschof,
2000). Teachers’ interactive patterns directly affect the way they see their
instruction, thus de-privatizing practices and becoming more technical about
their teaching and learning.
137
In Table 22, it is evident that Liz’s participation in PLC affected the
way she saw her daily instruction (line 1) and perhaps even her approach to
meeting the needs of all students (line 6). Her inclusive statements (e.g., line
2) were parallel to prior comments from other teachers (e.g., Table 20: line 1)
and were indicative of the specificity teachers were acquiring within specific
areas (lines 6-7). In Table 22, Liz (2T) expressed this perception:
Table 22
Second Grade Teacher First Interview–Liz
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 I think PLC has changed a lot how I view instruction. The ability to be
2 able to level our kids, and … have a consolidated group of the same level
3 makes is so much easier because you obviously focus your teaching. But,
4 even out of PLC, I think I look at the levels of my kids a little differently
5 as far as trying to, you know, within our regular instruction, trying to
6 level a little bit more… And again, even with PLCs, we’re focused on a
7 specific area, we still tend to take a lot of the PLCs philosophies into our
8 grade level meeting and to talking about specific skills, you know, “Who’s
9 got a great idea?” Before, we talked about it, but not to the depth that we
10 do now. We’re coming up with more concrete ideas, ideas that are more
11 level to meet the needs of our kids.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
138
In traditional settings, teachers’ expertise increases with time, and
there is no concreteness to the learning that is likely to happen within the
context of their classroom. Professional learning community meetings
allowed teachers to create formal systems of interaction, reinforcing teacher
collaboration and agreements (line 9-11). The specific structure of teacher
collaboration allowed teachers to negotiate agreements that significantly
affected the academic achievement of their students in their classrooms, as
demonstrated in City Elementary’s API index (see Table 5). Furthermore,
informally, interaction elicited meaningful conversations that created the
means by which the professional expertise of teachers became more in line
with that of their colleagues. According to interviewed teachers, the time
invested informally maximized the time spent in the formal setting and
enhanced its productivity as it allowed teachers to communicate with one
another, vent their frustrations, and create a common culture that bound
them together and to specific objectives.
What I Know Versus what we Know
Lortie (1975) explained that for teachers, as colleagues, it is not what
they know and share that is paramount, but rather what they have learned
individually through their own experience. Although this argument may still
be valid today in traditional settings. I found just the opposite to be true at
City Elementary where supportive teams were organized as PLCs. Collective
139
learning and agreements became the norm , affecting both the way
individuals related to one another and the role experience played within the
context of the group. Teachers were more willing to rely on each other’s
expertise as they attempted to meet the needs of their students. The excerpt
in Table 23 denotes a detailed process of instruction. According to Becky (2T),
teachers first brought to the table their individual ideas about what should
be taught (lines 3-4). Then, collectively they agreed to use specific methods of
instruction—“how we’re going to teach it” (line 4). After teaching the agreed
skills or subject, teachers came back and evaluated what they did as a group
and individually (lines 5 & 6) and then decided ways to improve the delivery
of instruction—“how we can make that better” (line 6-7). The togetherness
established in this kind of setting redefined the classrooms, from an isolated
socio-cultural space to a spaces that are related through the organic
agreements about curriculum planning and instructional strategies held by
teachers (lines 4-7). Ultimately, it is in the classroom where the influence of
the group is expected to affect individual teacher practices. I asked one of the
teachers to define, in her own words, what she understood PLCs meant.
In Table 23, Becky (2T) acknowledged the increasing benefits of
working together and highlighted the academic gains she noted in students
(lines 11 & 14):
140
Table 23
Second grade teacher second interview–Becky
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 It’s a way we make ourselves go crazy. It’s a chance, it’s a fabulous
2 opportunity that lets teachers collaborate when we never got to do it.
3 Before and during school time we get to sit down and bring our ideas
4 together and decide what we’re going to teach, how we’re going to teach it.
5 Then it gives us an opportunity to after we’re done teaching it, come back
6 and talk about what worked, what didn’t work, how we’ve changed it, how
7 we can make that better. Talk about first best instruction so the first time
8 you teach it you do the best you can do, you know, and then from there
9 the leveling part gives us an opportunity to level our kids and teach to
10 them for half an hour a day. So, it’s been an amazing opportunity for
11 teachers, teams, and the kids. We were noticing huge gains. We did
12 writing at the beginning of the school year because our administration
13 just left it open to LA so we did writing for a little bit. Oh my god, they
14 grew on their writing skills so much and that was pretty cool. In basic
15 terms, it gives us time to collaborate with each other and it gives kids a
16 chance to learn at their own level for a solid half hour a day with other
17 kids at their level too.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
141
Implicitly, what Becky (2T) stated was that teachers looked more
closely at student learning and the particularities of instruction as it became
aligned to meet academic expectations. The supportive atmosphere found in
successful PLCs disrupted the traditional role of teachers as isolated from
one another and established a new paradigm regarding their role within the
group, a role that is defined by the symbiosis found in their togetherness and
the collective knowledge that evolved as a result of such interaction.
In further interviews, some of the teachers referred to the support of
the collaborative group as essential to their success and key to their ability to
address the specific needs of students.
The Negotiation of an Informal Mechanism of Accountability
These findings demonstrate that, to a certain degree, privatization of
practice still existed among teachers at City Elementary due to the
institutional arrangements of the classroom, even among those participating
in PLCs. However, although the physical arrangement of the classroom had
not changed much, the redefinition of the collective ownership and
responsibility of students dramatically changed the way teachers at City
Elementary interacted with one another. Teachers were held accountable for
meeting the needs of all students, which in itself created a disruption to the
structures of the traditional classroom. Through a process of professional
collaboration, teachers applied their existing knowledge to meet the needs of
142
all students. Table 24 and Table 25 highlight the comments from a fourth
grade teacher and a second grade teacher regarding teachers’ perception of
accountability and student academic achievement.
Table 24
Fourth Grade Teacher First Interview–Correen
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Because we’re always discussing first best instruction when we get
2 together, I feel like I have many more ideas on specifically how to teach
3 certain subjects. We didn’t really used to do that so much. We talked
4 about things and ideas we can put in our lesson plans, but I actually felt
5 like I had to go to teachers and say, “I feel I cannot teach this. What
6 exactly are you doing?” “Why do your students have these scores and my
7 students have theses scores?” So, it’s opened up, we’ve been able to talk
8 about our teaching. And it kind of has made me see my weaknesses,
9 because we change what we’re teaching all the time. Things I thought I
10 was good at teaching, I’m struggling a little bit and I need to get some
11 more input.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
Both of these excerpts denote a high degree of accountability that came
as a result of teachers working together (Table 24: line 1; Table 25: lines 6-7).
Correen (4T) and Jane (2T) also stressed that teachers were more willing to
143
discuss their strengths and weaknesses, as directly correlated to their
students’ academic achievement (Table 24: lines 6-7; Table 25: lines 8).
Correen (4T) even made reference to the way she used to teach in
isolation (Table 24: lines 3) and when any form of support was needed, she
had to, by her own initiative, look for it. Their collaborative process allowed
them to open up (Table 24: line 7), look at student scores, compare to each
other (Table 25: line 1), and share best practices (Table 24: line 10-11; Table
25: line 6).
Table 25
Second Grade Teacher Second Interview–Jane
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Our first step was to really look at our scores and compare to other
2 teachers. With PLC you come to the table and realize that I’m not
3 providing all that I can use and I’m not providing a broad enough base,
4 that I’m hitting the lows, I’m hitting the highs. That perhaps, grammar is
5 not my strength. We come to the meeting with the mindset of being
6 prepared… being willing to share the good and the bad… working
7 together.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
Hence, PLCs at City Elementary disrupted teaching as traditionally
characterized and created norms and expectancies that eventually led
individual teachers to reexamine their practices as a dichotomy between
144
privatization and open classroom. Teachers had a sense of applying
knowledge in a methodical way, substantiating their technical competency
and ability to meet the needs of all students.
The transcript in Table 26 reflects Mary’s (2T) perception about her
team’s collaborative practices:
Table 26
Second grade teacher second interview – Mary
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 The expectation during collaboration is that we provide each other
2 support, ideas, and techniques. That we work together as a team. The
3 learning is two-fold, the learning that occurs in each of our meetings. We
4 learn from each other ideas and a lot about ourselves, about our strengths
5 and weaknesses, so that we could provide a better environment for our
6 kids.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
In the excerpt in Table 26, Mary (2T), a veteran teacher, in light of her
professional relationship with her colleagues, addressed the learning process
as one in which expectations for those participating in the collaborative
process (line 1) are developed. It was noticeable in her comment that, in
working together, formal learning has taken place in the form of “support,
ideas, and techniques” (lines 1-2). Mary (2T) further suggests that she
believes this form of dialogue “provide[s] a better environment for our kids”
145
(line 5). This view was validated by other teachers; they discussed how their
instruction has been affected in such a way that they now felt much more
competent in differentiating their instruction to meet the needs of all
students.
Meeting Student Academic Needs
All interviewed PLC team members shared with me insights regarding
how they became reciprocal contributors to the body of technical knowledge
within their learning communities. A consistent theme that emerged from
these interviews was that the teachers’ main motivation and reward for
involvement with one another was their ability to tailor their instruction to
meet the specific needs of students. The participating teachers referred to
this process as one that allowed them to meet individual needs for a specified
amount of time, making sure that these students received targeted
instruction at their level.
The excerpt in Table 27 denotes a sophisticated system of
accountability that is nonexistent in traditional settings. As a result of their
collective ownership of student learning (line 1), teachers had a sense of
accountability to each other for the reason that, for a specific amount of time,
they taught someone else’s students (lines 2-3). The formal system of
responsibility went beyond the expectancies of state or district accountability
146
measures to the specificity of agreed upon skills that teachers must teach
during leveling time (lines 3, 5-6).
Table 27
Second Grade Lead Teacher Second Interview
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Now we say, ‘these are our kids, not just my kids’. Ah… and in the same
2 way you’re totally held accountable, because for half an hour, you have
3 somebody else’s kids and they come back talking about what you have or
4 have not been doing in that half hour block, you know… and not to punish
5 any of the teachers, but if you have your kids not do anything, and they’re
6 not learning the skills that they’re supposed to be learning, well, kids talk
7 or we ask them, when they come back, ‘What did you learn at leveling
8 today?’… just in casual conversation…
9 “Oh, we watched a video.” “Oh, really?!” “Was it on multiple meaning
10 words or compound words?” “No, it was such and such.” “Oh, it’s
11 interesting.” You know. Yea, you’re held accountable, because you’re
12 teaching everybody else’s kids now….
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
Thus, at City Elementary, as teachers established systematic ways to
formally assess student learning, they also created structures that facilitated
the discussion of shared long-term outcome objectives so that their dialogical
practices engaged with the production of lasting changes in the organization.
147
Furthermore, in Table 27, the implicit, informal systems of accountability
teachers developed for student learning is evidenced(line 11), “What did you
learn at leveling today?” (line 6-7). It is worth noticing the follow up
statement made by Lisa (2L), ‘just in casual conversation’ (line 8), denotes a
sense of relatedness with her colleagues that it did not seem to be intended to
harm one another, but rather, to ensure that the professionalism was
maintained by all (line 11-12). Thus, formally, teachers collaborated and
planned to meet the academic needs of students. Informally, however, they
ensured the agreements they reached were held consensually by the group
(lines 8 & 11).
One of the most salient characteristics teachers described, which
evolved over time, was their sophisticated approach to assess students’
learning as a means to tailor instruction based on students’ unique academic
needs. At first, teachers did not have a shared form of formative assessment.
They stated that their way of assessing students was limited to the
summative tests done at the end of every trimester at the district level and
once a year at the state level. Although the process of assessing student
learning took place within the context of their individual classrooms, teachers
acknowledged that in isolation, it was an unattainable task. In working
together, however, their technical capacity increased enough to achieve this
goal. Furthermore, in considering the expectancies of their daily routines,
148
teachers’ time was mediated by organizational constraints, standardization,
and accountability factors that could have inhibited their sense of self in their
classrooms. Thus, consulting with others improved their capacity and
augmented the quality of their response to meeting the academic needs of
students through possible interventions, even though the work itself was still
carried out within the context of their own classroom (Little, 1990).
The discourse features highlighted in Table 28 provide insight into the
existing trust level among colleagues (line 4), where their vulnerability was
not a sign of weakness but rather of competence and commitment which
enabled teachers to establish collegial relationships that supported each
other’s learning (lines 4 & 6). Through their dialectic practices, teachers
became more intuitive and self-reflective about their own practices. Rather
than simply justifying the way they did what , teachers had to demonstrate
through data that what they did supported measurable student learning
(lines 1-2). Thus, PLC meetings served to open up the socio-cultural isolation
of the self-contained classroom. Teachers at City Elementary no longer had
absolute control over the teaching of the students in their classrooms. That
individual sense of ownership seemed to have shifted to a unified view of
their collective responsibility for student learning, particularly among grade
level staff. Here is the excerpt from Correen (4T):
149
Table 28
Fourth Grade Teacher Second Interview–Correen
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Teaching the kids at their level, you know, doing formal assessments, as
2 well as, informal assessments in class and watching them really gain the
3 knowledge they struggle with, in their own classes while their learning at
4 their own level… as far as teachers, sharing our practices, it’s neat too,
5 because we do share… You know, you kind of make yourself more
6 vulnerable and open for new ideas.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
The plurality of approaches to instruction existing in traditional school
settings changed to shared, common practices that were informally supported
by peer accountability and agreements negotiated in open discussions among
all team members in a PLC. Interviewed teachers made repeated references
to their leveling process (Table 27: line 7), which was used as a term to
explain their homogenous grouping of students based on academic
competency. Once students were divided into groups, they moved between
classrooms to receive specific instruction based on teachers’ expertise. This
system was dependent on the formal assessments teachers built into their
schedule to ensure that all students mastered the content standards (Table
28: lines 1-2). This type of joint work relied on teachers’ interconnectedness
and sense of professionalism regarding collective agreements.
150
However, it could be argued that teachers organized as PLC in
different settings may not share the same knowledge, technical language,
interconnectedness, or sense of professional accountability. To a certain
degree this should be expected, given the different degrees of PLC
implementation experienced by collaborative teams. Both of the teams in this
study voluntarily agreed to be participating subjects, which does not
necessarily imply that the other collaborative teams at City Elementary
achieved such degree of joint work (Little, 1990). However, the specific
circumstances of each of these teams needs to be considered as a specific case
study to further the discussion related to the evolving state of shared
knowledge and technical language within the context of PLCs.
The Evolving State of Accountability and Professional
Development in the Context of PLC Reform
The most basic premise of PLC is teachers learning about each other’s
students’ academic achievement. Historically, teachers have had individual
control of their students’ academic success (Lortie, 1975) and any form of
accountability has been externally imposed through layers of bureaucratic
control at the local, state, and national level and often delayed until
standardized testing is given. When these results arrive, it is often too late to
do anything, which results in widening achievement gaps.
151
Within their own “kingdom,” as quoted by the principal at City
Elementary, teachers had the ability to exercise their expertise within the
context of their classrooms, and their learning was either based on their
individual experience or reflective of their own initiative, rather than the
institutional norm. Thus, PLCs, in this particular context, disrupted the
traditional approach to teaching one’s own students to teaching all students
in a grade level, increasing the collective sense of ownership and
accountability. When teachers agreed to open their grade books and discuss
the academic achievement of their students and, thus, provide immediate
interventions to those students who were failing to meet those expectations,
they learned about the commonalities of teaching in a professional
continuum. The learning that occurred within this context allowed teachers
to openly discuss their students’ academic competency, and because it was
specific to a number of identified skills, it allowed room for feedback into
their own capacity (see Table 25: line 1).
Therefore, allowing for changes on teachers’ daily instruction provided
a safe environment to enhance instructional practices. Each of the
participating teams devised different options for an intervention system
developed to provide re-teaching, support, extra practice, and enrichment by
sharing students, re-grouping, or other options. It also underlined individual
competency in teaching specific concepts and, based on their level of trust,
152
drew attention to the professional needs teachers had as they strove to
increase their expertise in teaching. These processes were essential to the
structuring of professional development at City Elementary. Teachers’
instruction ability level varied in degree of knowledge and application, thus
conversations that happened within the context of PLCs increased the
common shared knowledge, as well as highlighted the need to attend further
developmental training.
In traditional school organizations, teachers have limited opportunities
to develop targeted professional development opportunities; rather, teacher
learning is contingent on individual teacher effort or the competency of the
administrator in charge, who could either enhance or inhibit this process
(Lortie, 1975). This may be one of the reasons that the professional
competency of teachers has lost its legitimization when compared to the long-
standing professions.
It could be argued that, although teachers have had multiple
opportunities for professional development, because of randomness in
purpose and lack of consistency in application, their expertise varies widely
and often tends to be achieved by individuals, rather than the community of
professionals (Lortie, 1975). Paradoxically, professional development has
usually been organized in such a way that there is little or no consistency
among school districts as they attempt to apply new knowledge or innovative
153
teaching skills (Fullan, 2001; Little, 1999; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). The
lack of normative professional learning inhibits teachers’ capacity to
systematically arrive at agreements that would eventually affect the teaching
and learning school wide (Senge, 1990).
The principal stated that, at City Elementary, teachers seemed to have
“a purpose to learn.” Their collective effort became regulatory in matters of
professional development and every opportunity they had for increased
learning was brought forth to the team so that its collective application
became the norm. In my observations, the members of both teams who
participated in some form of professional development returned to the site
and began to publicly entertain the new ideas they learned. This process had
at its core student learning and not only strengthened the ties among team
members, but it also increased their collective shared knowledge (see Table
19).
During teachers’ collaboration time, questions went back and forth
between team members regarding their accomplishments or lack thereof.
Their joint responsibility evoked a closer examination of their instructional
practices, and what they did within the confinements of their own classrooms
became open knowledge to the team as they were expected to share and
justify the academic achievement of their students, especially after the rest of
the team knew individual students. As professionals, there seemed to be a
154
shared sense of urgency to show mastery and competency on the subject
matter. Hence, teachers who in the past had been isolated and working on
their own were now willing to foster collegial relationships with their team
members, relationships that bound the group to better respond to the needs
of students.
In Table 29, (Jane) stated her experience after participating in the
conference about PLCs. In this case is noticeable once again the technicality
of interactive patterns teachers had in which, decisions about leveled groups
(line 2), collaboration, goals, and data (lines 3, 6 & 7) were substantiated by
students’ academic achievement (line 6).
Table 29
Jane’s Perspective on PLC
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 When I trained on PLCs with the DuFour’s, it totally changed my
2 perspective. It’s amazing because I finally heard what they had to say
3 about why leveled groups worked, and why collaboration and data and all
4 of that stuff is so important. And it totally changed what I thought. In the
5 past, we were not collaborating as a professional learning community, yes,
6 we had collaboration, but it was not the same as what we’re doing now.
7 It’s effective for student learning. We have goals, we have data.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
155
These comments were consistent across teams, and they appeared to
be part of their shared technical language. The institution, in this scenario,
responded by providing a change to the structure of the school and created a
schedule that reflected the time allocation needed for teams to meet on a
weekly basis (see Table 14). Within the context of these meetings, teachers
seemed to have a purpose. They developed norms. They maintained agendas.
Teachers’ dialogue focused on student learning, and the questions driving
their conversations were aligned to the proposed expectations found in the
literature about PLCs (DuFour et al., 1998):
1. Exactly what is it we want all students to learn?
2. How will we know when each student has acquired the essential
knowledge and skills?
3. What happens in our school when a student does not learn? Do PLCs allow teachers to acquire and articulate technical knowledge
together? This investigation has shown that within the observed teams, they
have at City Elementary; PLCs enabled professional conversations which
made this process happen. Nevertheless, much debate has risen as a result of
the PLC initiative, not necessarily because of the benefits associated with
collaborative practices, but because of the traditional mold in which schools
operate, ranging from schools organized so that their teachers are
interdependent on each other to schools where teachers are independent of
156
each other. Within my research site, the principal stated that different teams
were at different levels on the continuum of collaboration. This, however, did
not invalidate the process, but strengthened the argument regarding the
varying outcomes of PLCs. Furthermore, it solidified the notion that teachers
might be on the right path to establish new parameters identifying their
professional status when compared to other professions.
Shared Agreements: the Norm of PLC
In the summary of terms related to PLCs provided by Huffman (2001) ,
the foundational terms include: connectedness, shared norms and values,
shared decision making, and joint responsibility (as cited in Hipp et al.,
2001). These attributes were evident in one of my observations. The fourth
grade team was discussing the specific needs of their students and how each
teacher would meet those needs. The discussion focused on the extra help
offered by the administration in the resource setting. Although the number of
students allowed to participate in resource intervention was just three to five,
they argued back and forth about who would benefit most, even considering
that most of the resource students came from one classroom. The scheduling
and identification of students grabbed most of their time at that session. In
Table 30, I encapsulated a comment Ron (4L) made during one of their PLC
meetings in dealing with disagreement.
157
Table 30
Ron’s Approach to Shared Agreements
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 One of the things we have to realize in PLC is that we’re four and if three
2 of us agree on something, the last one has to learn to live with it… the
3 thing is, what we learn you’re going to learn it too, and perhaps, don’t like
4 it, but can live with it.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
There was disagreement among team members; thus, they tried to
reach consensus regarding the group of students to be offered the additional
resources. The discourse features highlighted in Table 30 denote a
remarkable reflection by Ron (4L). He was part of the original leadership
team that decided to implement the initiative. As the leader of the group, he
clarified the process embedded in PLC which does not require agreement
among all members but rather an opportunity to express concerns and then
to move on with the agreements of the majority (lines 1-2).
Learning to live with decisions that perhaps were far from their core
belief system was at the heart of this collaborative team (line 4). Moreover, it
was a test of compliance to demonstrate that, although the decision was not
fully accepted, everyone had an opportunity to be heard. What happened in
the classroom was still subject to the teacher’s discretion, however, \after
Ron’s comment, the team discussed the intervention rotations and the
158
number of students serviced in each group. They critically reflected in the
need to agree and move on and engaged in a relevant dialogue about what
mattered most, students’ academic achievement.
The interaction of this team, however, brings to light a criticism to
PLC, which occurred in repeated occasions. Although the collaborative
process should have addressed instruction and learning, teachers spent most
of their time discussing who should be in each group and what skill should be
given priority. Learning in these PLC meetings was not evaluative of
instructional approaches or metacognitive processes, but rather of individual
student deficiencies, skills needed for testing, and distribution of assignments
based on personal criteria and mastery of a concept. Because of the limited
amount of time teachers had to collaborate, minor tasks subtracted from
opportunities to maximize professional learning. If the process is not
regulated by a shared professional code, then the focus of meetings can easily
deviate from desired objectives (see Table 15). The literature supporting PLC
states that teachers should jointly participate in collaborative practices and
interdependently arrive at agreements that specifically define who the
students are, what they needed to learn (standards), the assessments
intended to evaluate student learning, the scaffolding of interventions for
those students with specific needs, and, last, the enrichment activities for the
159
students who showed mastery of the concepts being taught (DuFour et al.,
2004).
Clearly, teachers at City Elementary perceived themselves as still
learning about each other and about their students, and in repeated
interviews, they defined their status as beginners in the PLC implementation
process. At this stage of their implementation, the knowledge acquired and
articulated was centered on student learning and mastery of academic skills.
Their pattern of discourse revolved around student grasp of content
standards, which promoted a form of professional accountability that both
bound the teachers together and raised the bar for academic achievement.
During their collaborative meetings, teachers defined what students needed
to learn and how they were going to assess student learning. The
sophistication of their assessments was not centered on external measures of
accountability, but on a thoughtful analysis of students’ strengths and
weaknesses and a definition of the particularities of possible interventions.
As stated by Little (1999),
Schools organized for teacher learning would promote the systematic
study of teaching and learning in at least two ways. First, the school
would support teachers in investing questions, problems, and
curiosities that arise in teaching … Second, a school would promote the
160
study of teaching and learning by developing the organizational habit
of shared student assessment. (p. 236-237)
The joint work and collective agreements teachers can achieve as a
result of their involvement in PLC greatly differ from their traditional role in
the classroom once permeated by privatization and isolation. However,, these
processes involving joint work, collective agreements, and professional
accountability happened at City Elementary as a result of the trusting
relationships established among team members. The next chapter will look
more closely to this element, the power of relationships, and how
relationships influenced the way teachers communicated with one another,
the way they learned about each other.
161
Chapter 6
The Power of Relationships on the PLCs
Collegial relationships include five critical attributes: caring relationships; trust and respect, recognition and celebrations; risk effort and a unified effort to embed change… We found the schools that were functioning at the institutional phase had these support systems firmly in place, which were deemed essential elements for school learning and school improvement (Hipp et al., 2003, p. 10). I have constructed two main themes from the observations and
interviews pertaining to the acquisition and articulation of technical
knowledge: (a) through collaborative practices, teachers involved in PLC
share technical knowledge about students (academic achievement) and
teachers (professional expertise, practices, and beliefs), and (b) participating
teachers are accountable to each other. Both of these themes are intertwined
and of prime importance as I considered the continuum of learning. However,
to fully understand teachers’ interactional patterns, I must go back to the
core-- relationships. Much has been said regarding the content and adequacy
of the collaborative practices of teachers as they become a PLC. The spectrum
is wide, ranging from groups of teachers who are persistent in maintaining
their sense of privacy and are now placed in settings that expect them to
relate to one another in a collegial manner; to groups of teachers who have
brought their collective effort to unify their instructional strategies as a way
to meet the academic expectancies of students because of their trusting and
162
professional relationships,. Thus, I must first define the role relationships
have in the school as an organization.
Fostering efficacious relationships seemed to be an important goal for
both the principal and teachers at City Elementary. The principal stated
that, in retrospect, their involvement with PLC was “all about relationships.”
Teachers also supported this assertion stating that the successful
implementation of PLC with their teams was due to the way they related to
each other in and out of the school setting. They made remarks regarding
their closeness even before collaborative practices were institutionalized.
I observed, in numerous instances, how the affection and respect
teachers demonstrated for one another facilitated the creation of effective
patterns of interaction during collaborative PLC meetings. In Table 31, Becky
(2T) stated that in the past, they did relate to one another and share ideas
(lines 1-2). She made references to exchanges of information that happened
informally. The excerpt in Table 31 is indicative of how teachers related to
each other prior to PLC:
163
Table 31
Becky’s Perspective on PLC
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 We always got together. We did lesson plans and we shared ideas. But
2 now we actually share students, which makes a big difference. Now we
3 have data so, we’re looking at where kids started, where kids are now and
4 kids are rotating through different groups, and that’s all different… The
5 focus is on different skills, coming up with common assessments, I think
6 is the number one difference.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Becky (2T) explained that in the past teachers had been friends with
each other, “we always got together” (line 1), but their collaborative practices
were limited to the phenomenological discrete forms of interaction, as defined
by Little (1990): (a) storytelling and scanning, (b) sharing, and (c) aid and
assistance—“did lessons plans, shared ideas” (line 1). Then, they became part
of a formal process in which they not only shared these informal interactional
patterns, but, they also trusted one another in sharing what traditionally
constituted an individual responsibility, students. She said, “we actually
share students” (lines 1-2). Furthermore, she discussed an emerging
technicality about “different skills” and “common assessments” (line 5),
taking ownership of instruction for all students and agreeing upon data
based on specific benchmarks. This statement was further validated by her
164
colleagues. From their comments, I inferred that their social relationships, in
and of themselves, did not cause professional interconnectivity, but rather
provided the initial support for the sociocultural norms and processes
proposed by PLCs that enabled communicative patterns that went beyond
social relations into the heart of professional enterprise.
Relationships as Enablers
Relationships at City Elementary were considered carefully in the
implementation of PLCs. The principal stated that he invested much of his
first year in building social capital, establishing relationships with “key
players” and getting to know the staff, so that he could promote much-needed
reform for the school. After introducing the concept and technical language
related to PLC on his second year, the leadership team, led by the principal,
decided to make City Elementary a PLC. Several factors came in to play in
their decision regarding the continuation of PLC at City Elementary: (a) their
relative success (as perceived by participating teachers and administrators)
in year one of implementation; (b) the professional development conferences
they attended; and, (c) the support received from Riverside County Office of
Education. As a result of their focused approach in math, participating
teachers stated that a great number of students significantly increased in
their academic achievement in this area, which gave teachers the confidence
165
to take on a new challenge and extend the focus area of intervention to
language arts for the 2007-08 school year.
The principal and participating teachers, however, described this next
step within PLCs as convoluted and taxing. There were several factors they
described as contributors to their confusion, including limited time to
collaborate, restricted financial resources, partial training pertinent to the
needs of students, inadequate understanding about the theoretical
foundation of collaborative practices, and faulty assumptions about collective
agreements at the time. Thus, the principal, after close scrutiny of the way
teachers approached this challenge and how it was causing conflict to the
existing relationships of staff members, decided to redirect teachers’
attention and streamline their approach to intervention. Mr. Pal (A)
redirected teachers to focus on only one area, language arts, so that their
expertise could emerge in this area, paralleling the approach they had taken
towards math instruction during the previous school year (2006-07).
The role of the principal in this situation was decisive in ensuring the
continuation of PLC reforms at City Elementary. He noted that the
relationships of his staff members were threatened by increased stress levels
and their lack of expertise in implementing a new intervention. Thus, his
decision to redirect their attention to a specific area was intended to sustain
166
the supportive culture of the school and the momentum they had in
implementing PLC.
The teams, then, redirected their focus and addressed the needs of
students in the area of language arts. Although, teachers stated, “at first it
did not seem to have the same fluidity as math had,” they established a
pattern of interaction that facilitated the discussion of student learning goals.
Teachers stated that having gone through the process the year before allowed
them to apply the same process to the acquisition of skills in language arts.
Specific and targeted objectives were demarcated and timelines set, in
addition to the leveling of students and group formation among team
members. During my observations, it was evident that during that school
year (2008-09), the conversations had specificity regarding the joint work (see
Little, 1990) that teachers needed to accomplish in helping students acquire
mastery of skills.
The Role of Relationships
McAllister (1995) stated that horizontal working relationships are
critical to sustain effective coordinated action, which are “only possible where
there is mutual confidence or trust” (pp. 25). Relationships, then, must be
acknowledged as the primary source for professional interaction among
participating teachers. Furthermore, it was the validation of this affective
component within the institution that created the conditions necessary to
167
foster collegial relationships among team members. At City Elementary,
relationships evolved to permeate the negotiations and transactions
happening during PLC meetings regarding teachers’ professional growth and
student academic achievement. They also allowed teachers to change the
status of privatization of practices in relationship to student mastery of
academic skills in specific areas related to math and language arts.
Therefore, relationships directly impacted teachers’ awareness and
understanding of student learning from a grade level perspective as opposed
to their traditional view of their individual classrooms. This tacit knowledge
increased substantially throughout this process and allowed them to meet
students’ academic needs with accuracy and success. Relationships, then,
could be defined as a concrete universal affecting the meaning and meaning-
making of the cultural currency found in groups of teachers who are part of a
PLC. McDermott and Varenne (2006) stated that this significant feature
permeating collaborative practices is salient to, pervasive in, and
characteristic of teachers as professionals, to creating cultures that engage
teachers and arrange their collaboration.
Teachers ventured into what Little (1990) defined as joint work. At
City Elementary, the norms and expectations for the participating teams
were clearly demarcated and personal friendships, although implicit, became
prerogative to their interactive patterns. Such was the case when
168
participating teachers tried to hold each other accountable or bring an issue
to the team; their exchanges were coded with messages that showed a
connectivity that went beyond the process itself to a camaraderie that
extended beyond their classrooms into their personal life (see Table 32).
For instance, Correen (4T) referenced how her mother helped her
younger brother as a valid tip to help struggling readers (lines 5& 6). This
comment would not be considered as relevant in a different setting. However,
based on the relationship connecting Correen (4T) to the group, Roy (4T)
reaffirmed the suggestion, named the brother, and reflected back on his own
childhood memories (lines 14-15), which served as a way to validate the
suggestion and to consider it as a viable option to apply within the context of
instruction. What Correen (4T) communicated is a reflection that involved
self-disclosure of a childhood memory based on the trustworthiness of the
team. Wheeless (1978) defined the different degrees of self-disclosure as
“necessary to assess their linkage to each other within the broader concept of
trust” (pp. 144). Furthermore, this particular way of associating teaching to
one’s own experience was documented by Lortie (1975), who stated that
teachers have a sense of familiarity with the profession because of the
association they had during their own schooling (lines 7-8).
169
Table 32
Fourth Grade Exchange of Relatedness
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Ron: I think we can create something like directions or reading
2 directions… because if our kids don’t take the time to read the
3 directions…
4 Correen: You know what? This is gonna sound so stupid… but I bet if we
5 did this I think we should do a little experiment before testing about
6 reading and reading everything thoroughly like create a list or something.
7 My mom did this with my brother, and I’ve been wanting to do this with
8 my class, but when he was little because he didn’t listen to steps. So, she
9 made him a list to do this, do this, do this, and do this. When you are
10 finished, come read this list to me. Well, he never got to the end of the
11 thing. He never came and read the list to her. Because our kids go
12 through it the same way, they don’t read the questions thoroughly. If they
13 did, they would find the answers, especially when they read to the end of
14 the test.
15 Karen: Make it something like that.
16 Phil: You’re talking about Kyle, right. That would be great. I remember
17 taking a test when they ask you to read everything and when you get to
18 the end it says only do number one.
19 Correen: They don’t read it.
170
20 Ron: A couple of my kids are very question oriented. But we should teach
21 them specifically what to do.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
It was also common to hear teachers ask for suggestions or assistance
in specific areas within the context of the group in which an exchange of ideas
and information was expected without risking the status within the group.
Therefore, it could be argued that the teachers participated in traditional,
informal, technical exchanges and applied themselves in contexts that
affected all teachers within the team.
Teachers who have willingly ventured into this process relate to one
another in such a way that their togetherness becomes the catalyst for their
professional growth. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) stated that
working together involves interdependence, and trust plays a pivotal role in
enabling this process. When the administration referred to the successful
practices of these teams, the principal defined it in light of the relationships
being established and teachers’ response to them. “It’s all about
relationships,” the principal stated. Thus, until we are able to define and
assess the role that the affective elements play in the school organizations ,
we may well be limited in our ability to sustain efforts to enhance teacher
collegiality such as PLCs.
171
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) propose a model of trust to
explain the organizational conditions that must be present to lead social
actors into action. Their conceptualization of trust is based on ability,
benevolence, integrity, and the existence of perceived risk which will lead to
outcomes. This idea has been further validated by other scholars who
distinguish affect-based trust, one existing in dating and other such
relationships, from cognition-based trust, one based on an organizational
setting where there are specific boundary conditions (Mayer et al., 1995;
McAllister, 1995). It can be argued that teaching is about relationships; the
way a teacher relates to students, the way he/she establishes trusting
relationships either enables or inhibits student learning; and a case can be
made regarding teams of teachers within the context of PLCs. The
relationships to each other enabled by the cognitive and affective-based trust
among team members becomes the foundation that fosters learning.
The Significance of Supportive Dialectic Practices
The dialogue used by participating teachers often centered on student
academic achievement. Each member contributed based on his/her individual
experience and how she/he approached tasks in the past. In one instance, one
of the teachers explained how she posted a chart showing the writing and
editing steps for second graders, and how her students followed the prompt
successfully. All team members exchanged ideas in a non-intrusive way, by
172
either contributing to and/or validating one another as often as they could. In
Table 33 there are comments loaded with emotion and supporting statements
validating a proposed idea: “too cute,” “I wish I was in one of your groups,” “I
like that,” “a good idea” (lines 1, 2, 4 & 7).
Table 33
Second Grade Team Relatedness
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Carol: That is too cute…,
2 Lisa: I wish I was in one of your groups.
3 Jane: I made it really simple at the beginning…
4 Liz: Yea, I like that.
5 Jane: If there’s a way to assess on the 25th, we can use that PLC to level
6 for writing instead of making CFAs, and that might carry us for a while.
7 Carol: Yea, that might be a good idea to plan the rest of our PLCs.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
This kind of interactive patterns demonstrates that the strength of the
existing relationship is at the core of collaborative practices. The affective
side of the interaction found in a PLC is one that requires more attention, as
it becomes the cultural determinant of the processes through which teachers
are able to share and to learn from one another (e.g., line 3 when Jane
explained how she made the task “really simple at the beginning”).
173
During my observations, teachers validated each other’s instructional
practices through targeted expressions of personal affection (Mayer et al.,
1995; McAllister, 1995), such as: “I like it a lot,” “I really like it,” “I like that,”
“I’d like to try that,” “I think I like it,” “I don’t like it,” and “I love that.” This
sense of approval reflected the value teachers placed on relationships through
a shared, learned system of interaction. It was extremely rare to hear anyone
challenging someone else’s ideas or to have someone question a suggestion.
This metacognitive process could arguably be attributable only to situations
in which teachers referred to specific outcomes associated with students’
academic achievement. Otherwise, their thinking was more in line with their
feelings as they applied their intellect and reasoning skills to solve problems.
During my observations of the group, teachers maintained their
connectedness, made suggestions, and/or implied changes in such a way that
seemed to look for the approval of the group—peer pressure could be a
powerful tool to conform to the norm of the group—and conflict was rarely
directly presented, but always veiled and diminished so that the dynamics of
the group interactions and the relationships were not affected by this process.
Relationships as Disablers
DuFour and Eaker (1998) emphasized the term community, an
environment where educators, linked by common interests, cooperate and
provide emotional support for one another in order to achieve collectively
174
what they cannot achieve individually. The authors focused on the effects of
the school culture on student outcomes as a long-standing concern in
educational research. During the interviews, trust was evident in both the
second and fourth grade teams (e.g., Tables 27 and 26). I found this ethos of
trust in both grade levels. Second grade had seven members in the group
while fourth grade team had four. Both of these teams, although different in
size, grade level, and gender ratio, relied heavily on relationships. The way
they approached an issue or an idea was by questioning and asking for
clarification. No one backed up their statements with absolutes, but rather
with options that often were open for discussion. Even when the application
of an instructional strategy proved to be effective, teachers made it sound as
part of their thinking and expected some form of validation from the group
(see Table 33). Ideas were not challenged explicitly, but rather through
innuendos that implicitly asked for clarification.
In the excerpt described in Table 34, Becky (2T) voiced a concern using
a soft tone of voice and minimized her apprehension by calling it “little tiny
concern” (line 1). What I interpreted from Becky’s approach to addressing her
concern was a hidden statement: We’re overlooking the importance of math.
Let’s stop and discuss how we can teach math within the limitations of our
time. Is this a problem for everyone? The response given by Lisa (2L)
validated her concern, yet, rather than addressing the dilemma as a grade
175
level, Jane (2T) gave Becky (2T) the authority to do what was needed within
the context of her classroom (lines 6-7) if she felt like it (line 6).
The vignette in Table 34 exemplifies the dialogical practices of
teachers as they approach concerns:
Table 34
Second Grade Team’s Approach to Concerns
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Becky: I just have a little tiny concern.
2 Jane: Sure
3 Becky: When are we teaching math? Because my math cuts off into my
4 writing.
5 Lisa: Yea, math runs into 1:40.
6 Jane: I would say if you feel that your math block needs to be longer…
7 don’t cut your math short because you’re right they need that.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined; major speech function italicized.
The concern regarding the allocation of time to teach math was
significant to Becky (2T) and from Lisa’s (2L) statement was an issue for the
grade level. However, it seemed that Becky (2T) did not want to offend Jane
(2T) or to go against her proposed time for intervention, which is why she
voiced her opinion in such a way that the group would not perceive it as
confrontational. First she introduced the question using a plural pronoun
that included all team members, we (line 3), rather than directly questioning
176
individual teachers. Then, she switched to the use of a personal possessive
pronoun my (line 3) as though she were the only one with the issue. Lisa (2L)
confirmed Becky’s (2T) concern stating that “math runs into 1:40” (line 4),
which indicated that the issue was not of one teacher but of the team. At this
point, not all participating members discussed the options available, but
rather Jane (2T) made the call to leave the instructional objective in this
situation to Becky’s (2T) discretion rather than the agreement of the group.
Jane (2T) provided a sense of independence for one teacher to make a choice
that would affect her classroom if she felt like it (line 6).
Paradoxically, in this kind of scenario relationships could become
disablers as they could get in the way of professional accountability. When
participating actors base their relationships on affect-based trust only, then
organizational goals and professional accountability could affect teachers
ability to monitor the improvement of their performance (McAllister, 1995).
For both of the participating teams, existing relationships enabled them to
informally exchange information and collaborate with one another prior to
becoming a PLC. From my observations, relationships within the PLC
became crucial in maintaining the dynamic of the group and in allowing
teachers to be accountable for the academic achievement of their students.
However, the strength of teachers’ relationships hindered the possibility of
177
professionalizing collaborative practices in situations like the one described
in Table 34.
This study was not intended to uncover the primacy of relationships in
PLC nor was it meant to decontextualize the effect of relationships in the
work environment. It does, however, provide an overview of the relevance of
relationships to PLC reforms and recommendations that could guide future
studies of the matter.
The literature pertaining to PLCs defines the idea of a community as
the kind of culture that produces a communal ethos in which interdependent
systems focus on student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 1998; DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Lieberman, 1995; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Little, 1982;
Rosenholtz, 1989; Senge, 1990). It specifically addresses the behaviors and
actions that create the professional knowledge necessary to foster high
student achievement. The premise of the PLC model proposed by DuFour and
Eaker (1998) focuses on the technical aspects of teaching as they relate to
student learning: the need to specify what students need to learn; identify the
way to assess what students have learned; and determine what to do when
students fail to learn. From an organizational perspective, a collaborative
approach does impose, in teachers, requirements that are linked to student
academic achievement. However, this kind of approach does not guarantee
that teachers will become interdependent and relate to one another (Cooper,
178
1988). It is at this stage where the affective side of institutions must be
acknowledged to ensure that dialogical practices among teachers could be
fostered in a climate of collegiality and support.
In PLCs, members foster relationships of trust among their
constituencies—teachers, administrators, and community members—
providing the opportunity to rely on each other’s strengths. Sergiovanni
(1994) further validates this view and defines a professional community as a
collectivity of individuals who share values, a common vision, and are bound
to ideals. Although an intricate part in the making of a community,
relationships of trust and interaction must be established for the purpose of
accomplishing professional goals.
Trust and Interaction
The account of collaborative practices at City Elementary shows how
trust and cooperation enable the sharing of knowledge and expertise that, in
turn, breaks down the barriers found in traditional settings. Although the
implementation of PLC was fairly recent, teachers testified to the benefits of
building a common knowledge base. The interaction found in schools where
PLC has been institutionalized is confronted with four issues as highlighted
by Cole (1991): “self-socialization, colleagueship, community, and
opportunity” (p. 415). In collaborative teams, interaction becomes a factor
that alters the condition in which teachers traditionally develop their
179
expertise. Teachers are now willing to share ideas and best practices. In
Table 35, the second grade team discusses alternatives for students to check
their answers on a given test.
The kind of interaction portrayed in Table 35 could be considered
unprofessional and lacking the structure found in formal meetings or in other
professional settings. Teachers go back and forth arguing over the benefits of
returning to the students the same test they had taken so that they could
recheck it (lines 10). The counter-comments were posed as feelings, “I’m not
sure how I feel about that” (line 16) while the validating arguments seemed
to rely on personal preference, “I kind of like that” (line 23), or “it might be
beneficial” (line 27). However, there are two elements that must be
considered when referring to teachers’ interactional patterns. First, teachers
related to each other on a personal level, (e.g., line 16-17); in order to have an
ethos based on trust and cooperation, they must first develop an
interdependent relationship that considers the person holistically.
Furthermore, my observations demonstrated that for both grades, upper and
lower, gender played a role where women tended to be more open regarding
their personal life as opposed to men, who appeared more reserved regarding
sharing anything personal other than the task at hand.
180
Table 35
Second Grade Interaction on Test Taking Strategies
Line Transcript Excerpt
1 Mary: We can pretest for the next level groups maybe that Friday after
2 we’re done… and it will give us Monday to get the results get the groups
3 going…
4 Becky: Starting Tuesday, ‘cause that’d give four days on your level
5 groups.
6 Lisa: We still have to think something to do for our level groups here...
7 Mary: The day we test, we can hold our own kids and then test them?
8 Becky: Yes, we’ll test our own kids.
9 Liz: Do we give them the same test?
10 Becky: Yes, we talked about giving them back the test that they took
11 Mary: Yes, that’s why we didn’t write on them.
12 Becky: …and have them go through it…
13 Mary: Yes
14 Becky: … And redo it…
15 Liz: OK
16 Jane: I’m not sure how I feel about that.
17 Cynda: I’m not sure about that either.
18 Becky: About what, doing the same test or…?
19 Cynda: No, handing them back the test that they took, say you are
20 whoever took the test, Andrew, and then said, OK Andrew, I want you to
181
21 look over your test again and make sure that you’re happy with all your
22 answers.
23 Lisa: I kind of like that… We ask them to do that over and over in CSTs and
24 they don’t do anything, so it’s kind of a nice teachable moment.
25 Jane: How do you relook over a test to see if you missed anything?
26 Becky: I don’t know, we can always try it and see how it goes.
27 Lisa: It might be beneficial.
28 Cynda: But if they know it’s the same test, they’re gonna go: “we already
29 did it” and they may not want to do it again.
30 Becky: Maybe if they have another color, crayon, pen, and if you think is
31 right you need to put a happy face by it showing that you checked it…
32 Lisa: Look I checked it.
33 Becky: And if it’s wrong or you think it’s wrong, then you make it clear
34 that, that’s your answer changed. At least you know that they are
35 touching every single one.
36 Lisa: They can use highlighters, or something, or color pencils.
37 Mary: I’d like to get a set of red pencils.
Note: Key marker of discourse feature underlined.
Although this study was not about gender differences or the
characterization of interactive patterns among men and women, the
difference in how men and women relate to one another must be highlighted
as a subject for further inquiry. And second, the affective component of the
group dynamic must be considered as precursor to enabling conversations
182
about teaching and learning. Teachers often expressed their feelings, as
noted in the dialogue above. The foundational principles of teachers’
interaction within this context relied heavily on values, activities, and
relationships that portrayed community values.
However, this set of expectations and behaviors cannot be bestowed
among teachers, nor can they be achieved by changing institutional
arrangements and requirements. The need to rely on group values, activities,
and relationships to foster educational change requires an understanding of
the organizational and professional roles of teachers. As the research has
shown, a new paradigm of school’s functioning as a PLC has emerged with
increased teacher reflection, data, and assessment to drive decision making,
and shared responsibility for student achievement.
The literature supporting this new standard of change was that of
PLCs (DuFour, 2004). However, to promote the development of PLCs requires
professional development that is systematically embedded in the organization
of the school, so that it becomes essential to the school structure, as well as
its culture (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2006). Ultimately, this institutional
model could serve as a model for school improvement and reform initiatives,
one that provides increasing opportunities to facilitate the articulation and
acquisition of technical knowledge to ensure that all students learn as
proposed by PLC literature. However, all stakeholders (including district
183
level and teacher unions) must work collectively to overcome possible barriers
that could come as a result of contractual agreements and negotiations to
succeed as a school community that works in improving teaching and
learning (DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Marzano, 2004). With these structures
in place, enduring success could be achieved (Collins, 2001).
184
Chapter 7
Summary of Findings and Significance of Research
A systematic approach that builds a strong teaching profession and recruits and retains teachers where they are most needed must... develop, recognize, and share teacher knowledge and skill to create widespread expertise that can improve schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 206-207).
Schools in the United States often venture into promising practices
intended to increase the academic achievement of students. A wave of
educational reforms and possibilities bombards administrators, who often
find their decision making affected by budgetary issues, accountability
factors, and educational policies, in addition to institutional constraints. One
promising reforms efforts has spread throughout the country with a rather
simplistic approach to teacher learning and student accountability. The
argument for this particular reform builds on a widely accepted body of
literature regarding teacher collaboration and collegial practices stating that
for schools to become effective, they must provide the means by which
teachers, through joint practices and common agreements, could meet the
academic needs of all students. The reform advocates for schools to become
PLCs, based on specific and measurable outcomes pertaining to the academic
achievement of students.
The literature provides empirical evidence to support the PLC
approach to school reform (see DuFour et al., 2005). Researchers (Hipp et al.,
185
2003; Little, 1982; Rosenholtz, 1989) have endorsed collaboration for more
than two decades as a way to increase teacher expertise. Thus, a needed area
of analysis was whether or not the intended meaning embedded in the
organizational model proposed by PLCs actually translated into meaningful
acquisition and articulation of technical knowledge for teachers as
professionals. This study explored PLC collaborative practices at an
elementary school and how these practices translated into shared technical
expertise and common language. It analyzed how the knowledge generated
among participating teams evolved.
The rhetoric that supports the PLC approach has been substantiated
by decades of research highlighting the importance of organizing schools into
communities to foster individual and collective learning. However, the widely
marketed approach, Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best
Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement, by DuFour and Eaker, (1998)
fails to consider the overall complexity of establishing a collaborative culture
in a school setting. PLC arguable involve a substantial effort that requires
the redefinition of teachers as professionals, their professional knowledge, the
reconceptualization of their traditional status given organizational
constraints, and, most important, the fostering of trusting relationships
among constituents as enablers for action.
186
Throughout this study, I have demonstrated how this initiative not
only became instrumental in shaping City Elementary School’s culture and
affecting change, but also how PLC has significantly influenced the role and
status of teachers as professionals from a cognitive perspective. At City
Elementary, the dialogical practices that took place under the umbrella of
collaboration impacted the way teachers viewed their practices and how those
practices affected student learning. In both teams, second and fourth grades,
teacher expectations became shared agreements and their decision making
transformed g the sphere of influence that individual teachers had over
student academic achievement. Participating teachers were urged to ensure
that all students learn, notwithstanding their socio-economic level, ethnic
backgrounds, or linguistic ability.
The research also considered this reform effort through a sociological
perspective, considering teaching as a profession and its characterization as
affected by the institutionalization of PLC in a specific setting. At City
Elementary, teachers systematically applied the PLC approach to their daily
practices and took a risk based on the relationships they established
(McAllister, 1995). Indeed, as noted in the results of standardized
assessments over the course of four years (see Table 5), the changes
instituted through PLC, although specifically affecting only a fraction of their
day, reveal significant academic gains for students at City Elementary. This
187
focused approach was based on the learning that occurred within the context
of teachers’ collaborative meetings, which focused on student outcomes, and,
also, on immediate interventions when learning objectives were not achieved.
The acquisition and articulation of professional knowledge among
participating teachers when compared to the long standing professions
revealed some similarities based on the increasing technical language they
shared and the collective agreements being upheld, which could attribute an
increasing professional characterization to teaching as a profession.
Therefore, the process by which instruction has become more systematic
substantiates the argument that qualifies teaching as the learning
profession. This process, of course, comes as a result of the unique link that
qualifies and substantiates the collaboration of teachers’ trusting
relationships as validated by literature on trust and relationships in
organizations (Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Wheeless, 1978).
The example of City Elementary also exemplified the impact change
has on an institution and its members (Fullan, 2003). While teachers at City
Elementary underwent a cultural shift institutionally driven by the boundary
change and new administration, they also coped with the change of staff
members leaving the school and new staff members arriving. City
Elementary lost 15 of its staff members to other schools because, according to
interviewed participants, they had a difficult time adjusting to the possible
188
challenges projected by the change in the student population. Although this
study did not address the reasons some teachers decided to leave, it is
important to note that unequal representation of student subgroups at a
school site represented a major challenge in matters of consistency and
cultural cohesiveness. As stated in a report of the status of the teaching
profession in the state of California:
Underprepared teachers are distributed unevenly throughout the
state. California’s lowest-performing schools—those where highly
qualified and experienced teachers are most needed— continue to have
the least prepared teaching staffs. Similarly, schools that serve the
highest proportion of poor and minority students and English-language
learners struggle more with attracting and retaining fully prepared
teachers. (Esch et al., p. xi)
Furthermore, schools confronted with these kinds of cultural
challenges have to redefine their vision, mission, and goals. Such was the
case with City Elementary, which led its principal to open a dialogue with
teachers that elicited a wide range of responses, from adaptation to adoption,
or even refusal to change.
This study demonstrated that teachers participating in a PLC develop
a stronger sense of professionalism based on their collaborative and dialectic
practices. Their participation, although locally contextualized, could
189
transcend its immediacy to other collaborative teams, sharing common
attributes and showing similar organizational patterns. Furthermore, the
study highlighted the complexity of teaching and learning and how the
intricacies of both processes must be locally contextualized and
representative of the needs of students. It would be an error to define teacher
learning without considering the locale and the context in which it evolves.
Teacher learning developed in direct response to the academic, socio-
economic, and linguistic needs of a specific community of students.
When PLC is considered as a reform effort, there is a need to involve
institutions and policy makers in a conversation about the need to
fundamentally reorganize the school day to schedule non-instructional time
for the purpose of collaboration. It seems to be that the new buzz of the
twenty-first century focuses on the skills of tomorrow that are needed for
students to be successful. If such is the case, there is a need to increase
allocated time for joint practices, so that teachers have an opportunity to
systematically address student academic needs and come to collective
agreements about curriculum and instruction. Scheduling non-instructional
time within the school day could represent a major challenge for school
administrators, who are constrained by policies and regulations.
Furthermore, for institutions to achieve such complex tasks, teachers’
190
associations and districts must come to consensual agreements modeling a
level of professionalism comparable to other professions.
The two recurring themes found in this study revealed, first, the
evolving state of the dialogical practices among participating teachers
regarding the technical knowledge acquired and articulated within the
context of PLC. This body of knowledge, although permeated by
accountability policies that come from the federal, state, and district level,
took on a much broader sense of professional accountability: that of the
individual teacher to the team. Teachers demonstrated a focused,
instructional approach based on specific standards and student mastery of
those standards. The second theme found in this investigation indicated that
teacher conversations were driven by specific benchmarks and timely
interventions which resulted in increased student academic achievement.
This kind of setting views accountability from a different perspective.
Participating teachers hold each other accountable, and their professionalism
becomes the norm for their actions. This kind of accountability could
represent a new dimension to teaching as a profession which, when
institutionalized, could become the driving force for the institution. Policy
makers must consider this in the new area of accountability, so that policy
can take into account the status of teachers as professionals when they
become involved in learning organizations.
191
Last, the study focused on the primacy of relationships within the
context of collaborative teams. If PLCs function within the context of schools
as learning organizations in such a way that student outcomes are directly
correlated to instruction, then the characterization of students by their ethnic
background would not be a determining factor of academic success. To do
this, teachers must trust each other, be willing to take risks, and develop
professional relationships that systematically enable them to meet student
academic needs as a function of their instructional expertise (Darling-
Hammond, 1995, 1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2001, 2003; Lasiter,
1996; Liberman, 1988; Little, 1990, 1999; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister,
1995; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1979; Riley et al., 1995; Rosenholtz, 1989;
Sergiovanni, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994; Wheeless, 1978). Only
collegial relationships and professional dialogical practices will allow
teachers to view goals in a systematic way, to disclose their areas of strength
and weakness, and to compel them to learn from one another.
The evolving stage of PLC implementation at City Elementary
demonstrated an increasing instructional expertise concerning teachers’
ability to meet the needs of students who were considered disadvantaged due
to their ethnicity, socio-economic level, or language fluency. It provided
teachers with the rationale to change their practices and to address specific
academic needs in a systematic way. The research also revealed how
192
participating teachers at City Elementary increased their shared technical
language and commonality of practices. The de-privatization of practices
affected the way in which teachers saw their individual instruction and how
they were held accountable to each other. Participating teachers stated that
PLC reforms leveled a t great impact on their daily practices, shifting
organizational practices from a plurality of instructional practices to a
remarkable collective approach to teaching and learning.
I also demonstrated that the common technical language and shared
practices, qualifiers of PLC, were clearly evident during intervention time.
Indeed, both seemed to be gradually affecting the full instructional day, and
the understanding teachers held about interventions. The slowly evolving
state of PLC happened due to the complexity of schools as organizations and
the need to reexamine the way our institutions either foster or inhibit
educational change, a finding validated by the literature (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Fullan, 2001, 2003; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006).
To conclude, this study contributed to the current literature about PLC
and to the way in which this organizational model might affect the status of
teachers as professionals. The intent was to demonstrate the evolving state of
teachers as professionals and how PLCs are affecting the way schools, as
institutions, view teaching and learning. Further studies must look into the
contextual characterization of relationships as affected by and directly
193
affecting the making of schools as learning organizations. Additionally,
further studies could consider the mechanisms and processes in place at City
Unified School District to ensure the successful and legitimized approach to
institutionalizing PTT for the purpose of collaboration.
194
Resources
Abbott, A. (1988). The systems of professions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Apple, M. W. (1989). A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Bearman, P. (2005). Doormen. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, N. (2005). The organizational anatomy of family-school relationships from the school's perspective: An interpretive study of two urban elementary schools. Dissertation from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Berliner D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis. Reading, MA: Addyson-Wesley.
Bevir M., & Rhodes R. A. W. (2000). Interpretative Theory. D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.), Theories and methods in political science (2nd ed). London: Macmillan.
Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J.G. March (Ed.) Handbook of Organizations (pp, 972-1022). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Bidwell, C, Frank, K., & Quiroz, P. (1997). Teacher types, workplace controls, and the organization of schools. Sociology of Education, 70(4), pp. 285-307.
Block, A. (1983). Effective schools: A summary of research. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good (pp. 245-347). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
195
California Department of Education (2010). Academic performace index reports. Retrieved from, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide09.pdf
California Department of Education (2010). Academic yearly progress. Retrieved from, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/overview10.pdf
Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G., & Scribner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.
Cole, A. L. (1991). Relationships in the workplace: Doing what comes naturally? Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(5-6), 415-426.
Collins, J. (2001). From good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Cooper, M. (1988). Whose culture is it, anyway? : In A. Lieberman, (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools. New York: 45-54.Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Policy and professionalism: In A. Lieberman, (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools. New York: 55-57.Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond, (Ed.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 376-411). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Teacher learning that supports student learning. In B. Presseisen (Ed.) Teaching for Intelligence (pp. 91-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Cobb, V., & Bullmaster, M. (1998). Professional development schools as contexts for teacher learning and leadership. In K. Leithwood and K. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools, (pp. 149-174). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
196
Devaney, K, & Sykes, G. (1988). Making the case for professionalism. In A. Lieberman, (Ed), Building a professional culture in schools, (pp. 3-22). New York: Teachers College Press.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IA: National Education Service.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2005). On common ground. The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes. How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Elliot, P. (1972). The sociology of the professions. New York: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 119-160). New York: MacMillian.
Esch, C. E., Chang-Ross, C. M., Guha, R., Humphrey, D. C., Shields, P. M., Tiffany-Morales, J. D., Wechsler, M. E., & Woodworth, K. R. (2005). The status of the teaching profession, 2005. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization. New York: The Free Press.
Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
197
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, H.R. 1804, 1994. U.S. Department of Education, The Goals 2000 Act: Supporting Community Efforts to Improve Schools. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Hanson, M. E. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2003). Professional learning communities: assessment--development-effects. Sydney, Australia: International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement.
Hipp, K. A., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Moller, G. (2001). Professional learning communities: leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded staff development. Journal of School Leadership, 11: 448-463.
Hipp, K. A., Stoll, L., Bolam, R., Wallace, M., McMahon, A., & Thomas, S. (2003). An international perspective on the development of learning communities. Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Hord, S. M., & Westbrook, J. (2000). Reflections on the creation of professional learning communities: Multiple mirrors. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html
Kelly, P. P. (1995). Teaching as a profession? Retrieved from http://education.boisestate.edu/pkelly/webpages/920PPR.html
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. London: Falmer.
Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
198
Lasiter, D. C. (1996). Humanitas: Learning communities that transform teachers' professional culture. Report 143: 150. New York: American Professional Research Association.
Lieberman, A. (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A. (1995). The work of restructuring schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: powerful and problematic. American Educational Research Journal: 73(9), 673-675.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal: 19(3), 325-340.
Little, J. W. (1990). Conditions of professional development in secondary schools. In M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp. 187-223). New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In Darling-Hammond, L (Ed.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 233-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McAllister, D. T. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 24-59.
McDermott, R. and Varenne, H., (2006). Reconstructing culture in educational research. In Spindler, G. and Hammond, L. (2006).
199
Innovations in educational ethnography: Theory, methods, and results (pp. 3-31). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1979). Staff development and school change. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 69-94). New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: strategic opportunities for meeting the nation's educational goals. Washington, DC.: Center of Educational Research and Improvement.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Schools.
McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. McLaughlin, (Eds.) School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert J. E. (2006). Developing communities of practice in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mayers, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Metz, M. H. (1990). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experiences. In D. Mitchell and M.E. Goertz, (Eds.). Educational Politics for the New Century: The Twentieth Anniversary Yearbook of the Politics of Education (pp. 75-91). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.
200
Miles, M. & Huberman A. M. (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (2004). Breaking ranks II. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1987). The Five Core Propositions. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D. C.: US Department of Education.
National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards. NSDC Standards. Retrieved from http://nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm
Nelson, B. S., & Hammerman, J. K. 1996. Reconceptualizing teaching: Moving toward the creation of intellectual communities of students, teachers, and teacher educators. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 3-21). New York: Teachers College Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Ortner, S. B. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Protheroe, N. (2004). Research Report. Alexandria: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade. New York: Basic Books.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
201
Riley, R. W., Smith, M., & Forgione, P. D. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: a multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in Education: Vol 16 (pp. 353-389). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. (1990). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.
Squires, G. (1999). Teaching as a professional discipline. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2): 123-153.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Varenne, H. and McDermott., (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. Cummor Hill, Oxford: Westview Press.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2006). A review of the research on professional learning communities: What do we know? Paper presented at the National School Reform Faculty Research Forum. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/55l338
Wallis, C. (2008). How to make great teachers. Time, 171: 28-34.
Wilson, K. G., & Daviss, B. Redesigning education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
202
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclousure, and interpersonal solidarity. Homan Communication Research, 4(2): 143-157.